tibvavy  of  Che  Cheolo$(cal  ^eroinarp 

PRINCETON  •  NEW  JERSEY 


FROM  THE  LIBRARY  OF  THE 

REVEREND  CHARLES  ROSENBURY  ERDMAN 

D.D.,  LL.D. 


♦ 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


SPIRIT  AND 


PERSONALITY 


AN  ESSAY  IN  THEOLOGICAL 
INTERPRETATION 


BY  ^ 

WILLIAM  SAMUEL  BISHOP,  D.D. 

Author  of  1 The  Development  of  Trinitarian  Doctrine  in 
the  Nicene  and  Athanasian  Creeds’;  sometime  Professor 
of  Dogmatic  Theology  and  Metaphysics  in  the  University 

of  the  South 


LONGMANS,  GREEN  AND  CO. 

55  FIFTH  AVENUE,  NEW  YORK 
39  PATERNOSTER  ROW,  LONDON,  E.  C.  4 
TORONTO,  BOMBAY,  CALCUTTA  AND  MADRAS 

I923 


Copyright ,  1923 , 

William  Samuel  Bishop 

All  rights  reserved 


MADE  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES 


TO  MY  WIFE 

WISE  COUNSELLOR  •  SYMPATHETIC  CRITIC 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/spiritpersonalitOObish 


FOREWORD 


This  book  is  an  interesting  and,  I  think,  an  im¬ 
portant  contribution  to  theology.  It  represents  the 
thought  and  study  thro  many  years  of  a  learned  and 
devout  priest  of  the  Church.  To  Christians,  who 
reverence  Holy  Scripture  and  its  interpretation  in 
the  Catholic  Creed,  it  will  prove  a  real  message  of 
help;  by  those  who  are  familiar  with  the  inevitable 
controversies  that  grew  out  of  the  endeavor  to  relate 
the  facts  of  the  Incarnation  and  the  Person  and  work 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  the  conclusions  of  philosophy 
—  Eastern  and  Western  —  the  chapters  in  this 
book  will  be  read  with  deep  interest  and  profit.  It 
is  a  book  for  believers  —  more  especially  for  Bible 
students  and  clergy  —  it  carries  us  into  deep  waters: 
but,  considering  the  rather  abstruse  nature  of  the 
subjects  treated,  it  is  clear  and  convincing  —  and  it 
abounds  in  Scriptural  and  literary  reference  and 
illustration. 

Students  of  theology  will  be  especially  interested 
in  Dr.  Bishop’s  discussion  of: 

(1)  The  relation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  the  Glori¬ 
fied  Christ, 

(2)  The  Humanity  of  our  Lord,  as  Personal  and 
Impersonal, 

vii 


FOREWORD 


•  •  • 
vm 

(3)  His  historical  and  philosophical  review  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  and 

(4)  His  interpretation  of  St.  Paul’s  doctrine  of 
Justification. 

Throughout  they  cannot  fail  to  be  impressed  with 
the  subtle  and  careful  reasoning  and  analysis,  and 
the  simple,  profound  reverence  of  a  true  scholar  and 
a  man  who  walks  with  God. 

Thomas  F.  Gailor 
Bishop  of  Tennessee 


PREFACE 


This  little  book  is  a  study  of  personality  in  the 
light  of  the  New  Testament  and  of  Christian 
thought,  particularly  as  the  latter  finds  its  ex¬ 
pression  in  the  historic  Creeds.  It  is  the  author’s 
conviction  that  in  personality  is  to  be  recognized 
the  supreme  category  of  theology,  as  well  as  of  its 
kindred  sciences,  psychology  and  ethics.  Christian 
theology  finds  its  point  of  departure  nowhere  else 
but  in  reverent  Christian  faith;  it  has  its  witness 
in  Holy  Scripture  and  in  the  historic  Creeds  of  the 
Church.  The  endeavor  in  the  present  work  has 
been  first,  to  exhibit  the  Scriptural  basis  for  the 
kindred  conceptions  of  ‘spirit’  and  of  ‘personality,’ 
and  then  to  examine  the  evidence  of  personal  con¬ 
sciousness  and  of  the  thought  of  the  Church.  The 
New  Testament  is  the  point  of  departure  in  the 
opening  chapters,  which  deal  respectively  with  the 
personality  of  Christ  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Of 
these  it  may  be  said  that  nearly  all  of  Chapter  I 
and  the  first  section  of  Chapter  II  appeared  in  the 
form  of  articles  contributed  to  “The  Expositor”; 
the  second  section  of  Chapter  II  was  originally 
given  (in  part)  in  the  form  of  lectures  to  students 
in  the  General  Theological  Seminary,  New  York 
City,  and  in  the  University  of  the  South.  “Jus¬ 
tification  by  faith”  formed  the  subject  of  a  course 
of  lectures  delivered  in  the  Sewanee  Summer  School 


IX 


X 


PREFACE 


of  Theology,  and,  later,  in  the  General  Seminary. 
In  Chapter  III  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  re¬ 
viewed  with  special  reference  to  its  Nicene  and 
Augustinian  stages  of  development,  while  Chapter 
IV  deals  with  the  Incarnation.  Both  of  these 
great  dogmas  —  that  of  the  Holy  Trinity  and  that 
of  the  Incarnation  —  are  interpreted  through  the 
application  of  the  conception  of  personality.  Doc¬ 
trine  is  traced  back  to  its  twofold  source,  —  in 
the  New  Testament  tradition  on  the  one  hand,  and 
in  philosophic  thought  and  self-analysis  on  the 

other.  Neither  one  of  these  elements  may  be  over¬ 

looked  if  we  are  to  have  a  right  understanding  of 
the  theology  of  the  Christian  Church.  Divine 
Revelation  and  human  consciousness  —  the  latter 
as  enlightened  by  the  Holy  Spirit  who  inhabits 

and  directs  the  Church  —  these  are  the  bases  of 
theological  science;  and  of  these  Divine  Revela¬ 
tion  as  contained  in  Holy  Scripture  supplies  us 
with  the  ultimate  norm  and  standard  of  authority. 
It  is  to  that  Revelation  as  interpreted  by  the 

reverent  and  earnest  thought  of  successive  gener¬ 
ations  in  the  Christian  Church  that  we  are  mainly 
indebted  for  our  modern  conception  of  spiritual 
personality.  Belief  in  a  God  who  reveals  Himself 
as  Three  and  yet  as  One,  and  who,  in  the  Person 
of  Jesus  Christ  has  united  our  manhood  with 
Himself,  has  raised  human  thinking  to  the  spiritual 
level,  and  has  given  birth  to  the  conception  of 
personality  as  held  in  the  Christian  world  to-day. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

CHAPTER  I 

The  Exaltation  and  Heavenly  Priest¬ 
hood  of  Christ .  3 

CHAPTER  II 

The  Theology  of  the  Holy  Spirit  .  .  27 

CHAPTER  III 

The  Divine  Trinity  and  Personality  .  74 

CHAPTER  IV 

The  Personality  of  the  God-Man  .  .  115 

CHAPTER  V 

Human  Personality  and  Justification 
by  Faith . 137 

Summary  of  Contents . 171 

Index  of  Subjects . 179 

Index  of  Scripture  Texts . 187 


XI 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


CHAPTER  I 

The  Exaltation  and  Heavenly  Priesthood 

of  i  Christ 

i.  THE  GLORIFICATION  OF  CHRIST;  HIS  RELATION 
TO  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT 

During  recent  years  emphasis  has  been  laid  upon 
the  humanity  of  Jesus  and  the  historic  circumstances 
of  His  life  here  upon  earth.  In  the  view  of  the 
present  writer  the  time  has  now  come  to  lay  fresh 
emphasis  upon  the  fact  of  the  Divine  Christ,  as 
not  only  a  historic  but  also  a  super-historic  Per¬ 
son,  and  upon  His  life  not  merely  as  enshrined 
in  a  historic  record,  but,  even  more,  as  a  transcen¬ 
dent,  present  reality.  It  behooved  the  Christ  not 
only  to  undergo  such  things  as  came  to  Him  in  His 
human  experience,  but  also,  after  that,  to  “enter 
into  his  glory.”  Our  point  of  departure,  therefore, 
in  this  present  theological  study,  is  not  the  Incar¬ 
nation  of  the  Redeemer,  or  even  His  atoning  death 
upon  the  cross,  but  rather  His  exaltation  or  glori¬ 
fication;  His  entrance  upon  His  present  heavenly 
state  of  existence,  and  the  life-giving  relation  which 

3 


4 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


He  sustains  to  His  Church  and  people,  as  the 
result  not  only  of  His  death  upon  the  cross,  but 
of  His  resurrection  from  the  dead,  His  ascension 
into  heaven  and  His  session  at  the  right  hand  of 
God.  The  point  of  departure  of  what  may  be  called 
historic  Catholicism  was  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
Incarnation;  Evangelicalism  finds  its  pivotal  centre 
and  base  in  the  atoning  sacrifice  of  Christ  upon 
the  Cross.  Is  not  our  theology  to-day  finding  a 
fresh  point  of  departure  in  the  Resurrection  and 
glorification  of  Christ,  and  in  the  closely  associated 
doctrine  of  the  Spirit?  Such,  at  any  rate,  is  the 
conviction  of  the  writer  of  these  pages. 

Our  starting-point,  then,  is  the  Resurrection  of 
Jesus;  His  ascension  into  heaven,  and  the  Gift 
of  the  Spirit  by  which  the  Church  was  constituted 
the  living  Body  of  Christ.  Our  Lord’s  ‘glorification’ 
meant  for  Himself  a  new  relation  to  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Further  than  this,  it  meant  on  His  part 
a  new  relation  to  the  world  and  to  mankind.  The 
message  of  St.  Peter  in  the  first  Christian  sermon 
preached  to  the  assembled  multitude  in  Jerusalem 
on  that  day  of  Pentecost  was,  —  “  God  hath  made 
this  same  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  whom  ye  crucified, 
(to  be)  Lord  and  Christ.”  In  these  words  we  find 
indicated  the  glorification  of  Jesus.  In  His  relation 
to  the  world  and  to  the  Church  Jesus  has  now 
become  “Lord;”  all  authority  in  heaven  and  on 
earth  has  been  committed  to  Him;  He  has  re¬ 
ceived  “the  Name  which  is  above  every  name; 


THE  GLORIFICATION  OF  CHRIST 


5 


that  in  the  Name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow 
.  .  .  and  every  tongue  should  confess  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  Lord,  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father.  ” 
But  besides  this  ‘ external’  change  (as  it  may  be 
called)  whereby  Jesus  is  exalted  to  the  right  hand 
of  power  and  dominion,  there  is  a  coincident  inner 
change  which  consists  in  a  new  relation  hence¬ 
forward  to  be  sustained  by  Him  to  the  Divine 
Spirit.  The  name  ‘ Christ’  which  He  had  already 
borne  during  His  life  upon  earth  is  henceforward 
to  be  borne  by  Him  in  a  new  sense,  which  may  be 
expressed  by  saying  that  the  human  Jesus  is  hence¬ 
forth  to  be  recognized  as  the  Divine  Christ.  The 
name  ‘Christ’  in  its  original  signification  meant 
‘  the  Anointed  One,  ’  —  the  One  upon  whom  the 
Divine  Spirit  rests  and  abides.  This  is  witnessed 
to  by  our  Saviour’s  Baptism,  wherein  the  Spirit 
of  God  descended  in  the  form  of  a  dove,  and  abode 
upon  Him.  But  now  in  His  Resurrection  and  ex¬ 
altation  to  heaven,  Christ,  so  to  speak,  receives 
and  appropriates  that  Spirit  of  God  as  His  own 
personal  Spirit;  the  Spirit  of  God  is  from  hence¬ 
forth  recognized  as  also  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  —  a 
constituent  element  in  the  being  of  the  Risen 
Lord.  For,  in  the  words  of  St.  Paul,  “the  Lord  is 
the  Spirit.”1  This  glorification  of  Christ  is,  moreover, 
the  condition  and  presupposition  of  the  birth  of 
the  Church  as  a  new  creation.  “Though  we  have 
(heretofore)  known  Christ  after  the  flesh,”  says 


1  II.  Cor.  iii.  17. 


6 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


St.  Paul,  “yet  now  henceforth  know  we  him  (so) 
no  more.  Therefore,”  as  the  Apostle  continues, 
“if  any  man  be  in  Christ,  he  is  a  new  creature” 
(or,  as  the  words  may  be  otherwise  rendered,  “there 
is  a  new  creation”);  “  old  things  are  passed  away; 
behold,  all  things  are  become  new”  (II.  Cor.  v.  16, 17). 
The  Divine  Spirit,  to  whose  motions  and  promptings 
Jesus  had  so  perfectly  responded  throughout  the 
days  of  His  life  here  upon  earth,  is  now  recognized 
as  the  personal  Spirit  of  Christ  Himself.  From 
henceforth  the  human  spirit  of  Jesus  shall  enshrine 
and  itself  be  ensphered  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  The 
effect  of  this  union  is  the  ‘quickening’1  and  en¬ 
largement  of  the  human  spirit  of  Jesus,  so  that  it 
becomes  all  but  infinite  in  its  power  and  energy. 
He  has  “  ascended  up  far  above  all  heavens,  that  he 
might  fill  all  things.”  Henceforward  He  is  to  be 
“Head  over  all  things  to  the  Church,  which  is  his 
Body.”  From  the  point  of  view  of  His  personality, 
“Jesus  Christ”  has  now  become  “Christ  Jesus;” 
He  who  had  been  “born  of  the  seed  of  David 
according  to  the  flesh”  has  now  been  “separated”2 
(or  “distinguished”)  as  “Son  of  God  in  power, 
according  to  the  Spirit  of  holiness,  by  the  resur¬ 
rection  of  the  dead”  (Rom.  i.  3,  4).  From  the 
standpoint,  moreover,  of  His  priestly  and  atoning 
work,  as  this  is  set  forth  in  the  Epistle  to  the  He¬ 
brews,  the  human  and  mortal  “Aaron”  is  now 
recognized  as  the  Divine  and  immortal  “Melchize- 

1  I.  Pet.  iii.  18.  2  dpicrdevTos,  Rom.  i.  4. 


THE  GLORIFICATION  OF  CHRIST 


7 


dek”  who  ever  liveth  to  make  intercession  for  His 
people  in  the  presence  of  God.  Once  more,  the 
personality  of  the  Divine  Spirit  is  now  realized  in 
Him.  True  it  is  that  that  Spirit  possesses  and  has 
ever  possessed  a  personality  of  His  own,  distinct 
at  once  from  the  personality  of  Christ  and  from 
that  of  God  the  Father;  yet  at  the  same  time  the 
personality  of  the  Spirit  is  not  so  clearly  indicated 
or  so  strongly  emphasized,  even  in  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment,  as  is  the  personality  of  the  Father  or  that  of 
the  Son.  The  glorification  of  Christ  reveals  the 
Holy  Spirit  as,  in  a  sense,  His  “ double,”  —  His 
alter  ego,  —  the  same  and  not  the  Same.  While 
from  one  point  of  view  personally  distinct  from 
Christ,  from  another  point  of  view  the  Spirit  finds 
His  personality  in  the  Risen  and  glorified  Lord 
Himself.  A  certain  analogy  to  this  may  be  traced 
in  the  relation  which  a  wife  sustains  to  her  husband. 
From  this  point  of  view  we  can  understand  how  it 
was  that  “the  Spirit  was  not  until  Jesus  was 
glorified;”1  even  as  the  Ephesian  disciples  of  John 
the  Baptist  had  not  heard  whether  the  Holy  Ghost 
was  as  yet  a  realized  Presence,2  although  of  course 
they  must  have  believed  in  His  future  manifestation. 
The  same  truth  is  expressed  in  symbolic  form  in 
the  Revelation  of  St.  John,  where  “the  seven 
Spirits  of  God”  are  envisaged  as  the  “seven  eyes 
of  the  Lamb;”  —  i.e.  as  indicating  the  spiritual 

1  St.  John  vii.  39,  see  the  Greek. 

2  ’AM'  ovdl  el  II veviia  &yi op  earns,  rjKovaanev.  Acts  xix.  2. 


8 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


consciousness  and  all-penetrating  vision  of  the 
exalted  Redeemer.  The  eye  has  well  been  called 
“the  window  of  the  soul.”  It  is  through  the  eye 
that  the  personality  reveals  itself.  Even  so  it  is 
through  the  Holy  Spirit  that  the  Risen  and  glori¬ 
fied  Christ  reveals  Himself.  As  a  man’s  eyes  are 
a  part  of  himself,  —  “closer  than  hands  or  feet,”  — 
so  the  Holy  Spirit  is  essential  to  the  being  of  the 
Risen  and  glorified  Lord.  He  who  appeared  to 
St.  John  in  the  vision  on  Patmos  manifested  Him¬ 
self  in  His  messages  to  the  “seven  Churches  in 
Asia”  by  many  names,  but  each  message  closes 
with  the  recurring  refrain,  —  “  He  that  hath  an 
ear,  let  him  hear  what  the  Spirit  saith  unto  the 
churches.”  It  is  the  Spirit,  together  with  the  bride, 
who  says,  “Come.”.  Although  the  ‘ Paraclete ’ 
whom  Jesus  promised  to  send  to  His  disciples  from 
the  Father  is  spoken  of  as  ‘  another  Comforter/ 
yet  at  the  same  time  His  coming  and  presence  is 
to  be  the  coming  and  presence  of  Jesus  Himself. 
“I  will  not  leave  you  orphans;  I  will  come  to  you. 
Yet  a  little  while  and  the  world  seeth  me  no  more, 
but  ye  see  me,  because  I  live;  and  ye  shall  live  also.” 
While,  therefore,  from  one  point  of  view,  the 
‘Spirit’  and  ‘Christ’  are  two  distinct  Persons, 
from  another  and  an  equally  valid  point  of  view 
they  are  but  one,  and  that  One  is  Christ  Himself; 
the  Spirit  is  par  excellence  the  constitutive  element 
in  His  glorious  Person.  The  human  spirit  of  Christ, 
indeed,  has  not  disappeared  or  been  swallowed  up, 


CHRIST  AS  OUR  HIGH-PRIEST 


9 


but  it  henceforward  exists  in  manifested  personal 
union  with  the  Divine  Spirit.  The  words  of  St. 
Peter  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  may  be  further 
developed  by  way  of  interpretation  as  follows;  — 
“God  hath  made  this  same  Jesus  whom  ye  crucified 
to  be  both  Lord  and  Christ,  and  Spirit;”  for,  in 
the  words  of  St.  Peter’s  brother-apostle  St.  Paul, 
“the  Lord  is  the  Spirit.”  1 

ii.  OUR  LORD  AS  HEAVENLY  HIGH-PRIEST 

In  the  light  of  these  facts,  let  us  now  proceed  to 
the  consideration  of  our  Lord’s  priestly  and  atoning 
work;  for  it  is  in  action  that  the  true  nature  and 
character  of  a  person  find  their  manifestation.  It 
is,  of  course,  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  that 
the  doctrine  of  our  Lord’s  heavenly  priesthood  is 
developed.  According  to  the  teaching  of  this 
epistle,  our  Lord’s  perfected  priesthood  dates  not 
from  His  incarnation,  but  from  His  glorification. 
It  is  in  the  light  of  His  Resurrection  that  the  great 
words  have  their  application,  —  “Thou  art  my 
Son;  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee:”  “Thou  art 
a  priest  forever,  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek.” 
The  Spirit  is  the  Source  of  life  to  those  who  are 
in  union  with  the  Risen  Christ.  But  this  great 
fact,  so  central  and  so  vital  in  the  teaching  of  St. 
Paul,  is  not  dwelt  upon  by  the  Writer  to  the 
Hebrews.  Nevertheless,  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  as  in  the  epistles  of  St.  Paul,  the  earthly 

1  6  81  Kbpios  t6  Ylvtvph.  ’wtlv.  II.  Cor.  iii.  17. 


10 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


Jesus  has  now  become  the  heavenly  Christ;  yet 
it  is  only  through  the  Blood  of  that  human  Jesus 
that  atonement  has  been  made;  it  is  only  through 
the  veil  of  His  human  flesh  that  we  may  enter 
into  the  presence  of  God.  According  to  the  Writer 
to  the  Hebrews,  the  foundation  of  our  Lord's  per¬ 
fected  heavenly  priesthood  is  laid  in  the  truth  of 
His  humanity  no  less  than  in  the  truth  of  His 
Divinity.  On  the  human  side  His  priesthood  was 
typified  by  that  of  Aaron;  —  but  with  this  radical 
difference,  —  that  while  Aaron  was  a  sinful  man, 
himself  standing  in  need  of  redemption,  our  Lord, 
though  “  tempted  in  all  points  like  as  we  are,” 
was  personally  “  without  sin.”  On  the  Divine  side, 
our  Lord’s  priesthood  was  typified  by  that  of  Mel- 
chizedek,  who  is  set  before  us  as  “without  father, 
without  mother,  without  (priestly)  genealogy,  having 
neither  beginning  of  days  nor  end  of  life,  but  made 
like  unto  the  Son  of  God,”  and  in  that  likeness 
“ abide th  a  priest  continually.”  While  the  Aaronic 
priesthood  in  its  relation  to  humanity  may  be  called 
‘  immanent/  the  priesthood  of  Melchizedek  is 
Divine  and  transcendent.  And  yet,  as  they  find 
their  fulfilment  and  realization  in  our  Lord,  these 
are  not  two  separate  and  distinct  priesthoods; 
rather,  they  coalesce  into  one.  While  in  the  Per¬ 
son  of  the  glorified  Christ  the  human  (Aaronic) 
priesthood  is  in  a  sense  taken  up  or  ‘ assumed’ 
into  the  royal  priesthood  of  Melchizedek,  at  the 
same  time  its  own  distinctively  human  character- 


CHRIST  AS  OUR  HIGH-PRIEST 


II 


istics  are  retained.  The  Blood  of  Jesus  retains 
its  cleansing,  sanctifying  power  even  in  and  from 
the  heavenly  sphere  into  which  our  High-priest  has 
entered;  at  the  same  time  it  was  only  “ through 
eternal  spirit,”  —  i.e.  in  the  power  of  His  Divine 
nature,  —  that  the  incarnate  Son  “  offered  himself 
without  spot  to  God”  (ch.  ix.  14).  It  was  the 
eternal  Son  who  “made  purification  of  sins”  (i.  3) 
in  that  Manhood  which  He  had  assumed.  More¬ 
over,  as  our  true  Aaron,  our  Lord  not  only  bore  our 
sins  and  the  sins  of  all  humanity  in  His  representa¬ 
tive  capacity;  He  even  needed  personally  to  make 
atonement  by  reason  of  that  fleshly  frailty  of  ours 
of  which  He  had  become  partaker.  Even  though 
He  was  Himself  “without  sin”  in  the  midst  of 
His  own  personal  trial  and  temptation,  even  though 
His  flesh  with  its  frailty  was  exterior  to  His  proper 
personality,  yet  by  reason  of  that  frailty  of  the 
flesh  “he  ought,  as  for  the  people,  so  also  for  him¬ 
self,  to  offer  for  sins”  (v.  1-3).  And  this  our  Lord 
did  “once  for  all”  by  that  “perfect  sacrifice,  obla¬ 
tion  and  satisfaction”  of  His  death,  whereby  He 
passed  definitely  beyond  this  earthly  sphere  of 
temptation  and  weakness  into  the  sphere  of  ‘indis¬ 
soluble  life.’1  Consequently,  our  Lord  “needeth 
not  daily”  (as  those  Aaronic  high-priests)  “to  offer 
up  sacrifices,  first  for  his  own  sins,  and  then  for 
the  sins  of  the  people;  for  this  he  did  once  for  all, 
when  he  offered  up  himself.”  2 

1  Zco^s  &Ka.Ta\bTov,  vii.  16.  2  vii.  26,  27. 


12 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


In  so  far  as  our  Lord’s  priesthood  is  conceived 
of  as  having  its  point  of  departure  in  His  exalta¬ 
tion  and  enthronement  at  the  right  hand  of  the 
Most  High,  it  is  contrasted  (as  the  priesthood  of 
‘  Melchizedek ’)  with  the  earthly  priesthood  of  the 
sons  of  Aaron.  Our  Lord  is  a  royal  priest,  —  a 
priest-king;  something  that  Aaron  never  was.  And 
yet  our  Lord  is  expressly  likened  to  Aaron  (in 
ch.  v.  1-6)  —  “For  every  high-priest,  being  taken 
from  among  men,  is  ordained  for  men  in  things 
pertaining  to  God  .  .  .  and  no  man  taketh  this 
honour  upon  himself,  but  when  he  is  called  of 
God,  as  was  Aaron.  So  Christ  also  glorified  not 
himself  to  be  made  a  high  priest,  but  he  that  said 
unto  him,  Thou  art  my  Son;  this  day  have  I  be¬ 
gotten  thee.”  Our  Lord  as  “Son”  is  contrasted 
with  “men  having  infirmity”  (vii.  28),  but  at  the 
same  time  He  was  Himself  “taken  from  among 
men,”  and  was  during  “the  days  of  his  flesh” 
partaker  of  human  infirmity.  These  Aaronic  char¬ 
acteristics  qualify  Him  for  that  glorious  priesthood 
in  and  from  heaven;  while  the  Aaronic  priesthood 
as  such  is  swallowed  up  and  disappears  in  the 
more  glorious  priesthood  of  Melchizedek. 

We  are  now  in  a  position  to  see  how  the  glori¬ 
fication  of  our  Lord  as  our  heavenly  High-priest 
takes  up  into  itself,  as  it  presupposes,  the  truths 
both  of  His  incarnation  and  of  His  atoning  death 
upon  the  Cross.  Let  us  now  proceed  to  consider 
some  further  points  of  contrast  between  the  heav- 


CHRIST  AS  OUR  HIGH-PRIEST 


13 


enly  priesthood  of  Christ  and  the  earthly  priesthood 
of  Aaron. 

In  the  first  place,  these  two  priesthoods  are 
differentiated  by  the  characteristic  attitudes  of 
those  who  bear  them.  The  Aaronic  priests  stand 
during  their  ministration  in  the  Holy  Place;  our 
royal  High-priest,  “  having  offered  one  sacrifice  for 
sins  for  ever,  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of 
God”  (x.  11,  12). 

Again,  the  Aaronic  priesthood  and  the  priesthood 
of  our  Lord  are  contrasted  in  the  respective  places 
of  their  ministration;  —  the  one  Tabernacle  is 
earthly  and  material;  the  other  is  heavenly  and 
invisible.  Our  Lord  hath  “passed  through”  the 
heavens,  —  i.e.  the  several  spheres  of  “the  cosmic 
sanctuary”  (to  " Ay lov  kocjiukov ,  ix.  1),  beginning 
with  the  outer  court,  which  is  this  visible  sphere 
in  which  we  live.  Yet  this  visible  sphere  is  also 
‘heavenly,’  inasmuch  as  it  takes  its  name  from  the 
inmost  shrine  in  which  the  worship  culminates,  in 
the  immediate  Presence  of  God.  Even  now  and 
here  we  have  “boldness”  for  the  “entrance”  (or 
‘introit’)  of  “the  holy  places”  ( irappyjaLav  eis  ttjp 
elaobov  t&v  ayicov,  x.  19),  although  we  do  not  as 
yet  personally  come  into  the  immediate  Presence 
of  God  as  our  High-priest  has  done.  The  opening 
has  been  made  through  the  rent  veil  of  His  flesh, 
not  of  our  own.  This  mortal  flesh  of  ours  still 
screens  from  view  that  inner  shrine;  yet  Christ 
has  made  an  opening  through  which  we  glimpse 


14 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


the  inmost  Holy  Place  itself.1  In  the  ancient 
Tabernacle  the  outer  court  was  the  place  of  the 
altar  of  burnt- offering.  In  like  manner,  under  the 
New  Covenant  this  visible,  earthly  sphere  is  the 
place  where  our  Lord  was  crucified.  As  the  altar 
of  burnt-offering  was  the  basis  and  foundation  of 
the  whole  system  of  sacrificial  worship  offered  in 
the  ancient  Tabernacle,  so  in  the  Cross  of  Christ 
and  in  the  atoning  sacrifice  there  offered  is  the 
basis  and  ground  of  all  Christian  worship  and 
approach  to  God.  As  the  altar  of  burnt-offering 
was  “most  holy”  (“holy  of  holies,”  Exod.  xxix.  37) 
under  the  Old  Covenant,  so  the  Cross  of  Christ 
is  “most  holy”  under  the  New. 

Our  High-priest  is  said  to  have  “passed  through 
the  heavens”  (iv.  14;  not  “passed  into  the  heavens,” 
as  in  the  King  James  Version)  and  to  have  “entered 
into  heaven  itself”  {avrov  rbv  ovpavov),  ix.  24. 

These  expressions  cover  the  whole  priestly  work  of 
Christ,  which  began  with  His  atoning  death  upon  the 
Cross  and  was  completed  by  His  entrance  into  the 
immediate  Presence  of  God.  Several  verbs  of  action 
characterize  the  sacerdotal  office  and  work;  —  to 
stand ,  to  pass  through ,  to  enter  in,  and  (in  the  case  of 
our  Lord’s  priesthood  alone)  to  sit  down.  The  act 

1  This  is  the  symbolism  of  the  screen  or  ‘iconostasis’  in  the 
worship  of  the  Greek  Church.  The  holy  Mysteries,  which  repre¬ 
sent  the  atoning  work  of  Christ  upon  the  Cross,  are  celebrated 
behind  the  screen,  hidden  in  part  (though  not  entirely)  from  the 
view  of  the  congregation,  the  doors  being  opened  and  shut  at 
intervals. 


CHRIST  AS  OUR  HIGH-PRIEST 


IS 


of  'sitting  down’  is  not  recorded  of  the  Aaronic 
priests,  inasmuch  as  their  work  was  never  really 
completed.  This  act  is  peculiar  to  the  priesthood 
of  Christ,  whose  work  has  been  finally  completed 
by  the  offering  of  His  one  Sacrifice  "once  for  all.” 

There  is  one  further  act  which  is  specified  in  con¬ 
nection  with  our  Lord’s  work  as  our  High-priest,  — 
that  of  'coming  forth’  or  of  'appearing’  from  the 
Holy  Place.  In  chapter  ix.  verse  28  it  is  said  that 
"Christ  was  once  offered  to  bear  the  sins  of  many,” 
and  that  "he  shall  appear  a  second  time,  apart  from 
sin ,  to  them  that  wait  for  him,  unto  salvation” 
(Rev.  Ver.  transl.).  To  appreciate  the  full  meaning 
and  force  of  the  expression  "apart  from  sin”  in  this 
connection,  we  must  bear  in  mind  the  reference  to 
the  ritual  of  the  Day  of  Atonement.  The  word 
'sin’  here,  —  as  in  the  ceremonial  Law  of  Moses 
(and  also  in  Ezekiel)  means  'a  sin-offering.’  This  is 
the  force  of  the  Hebrew  (chattath),  to  which 

corresponds  the  Greek  a/i aprLa,  'sin.’  In  the  ritual 
of  the  Day  of  Atonement  (see  Lev.  xvi.)  the  high 
priest,  after  presenting  himself  in  the  Holy  of  Holies 
through  the  blood  of  the  sin-offering  (or  ‘sin’),  and 
having  offered  the  incense  before  the  sacred  Ark  of 
the  Testimony,  returned,  and  made  atonement  for 
the  altar  of  burnt-offering  in  the  outer  court;  and 
then,  confessing  the  sins  of  the  people  over  the 
(second)  goat  of  sin-offering,  sent  it  away  into  the 
wilderness  "unto  Azazel”  (see  R.  V.  transl.,  the  word 
being  rendered  in  the  A.  V.  by  "scape-goat”).  This 


1 


16  SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


latter  phase  of  sacrificial  and  atoning  work  in  the 
ritual  of  the  Old  Covenant,  however,  finds  no  parallel 
in  the  priestly  action  of  Christ.  There  shall  be  no 
more  work  in  connection  with  “  sin-offering  ”  when  He 
shall  appear  from  out  the  Holy  Place  into  which  He 
has  entered,  for  His  atoning  work  has  been  finished 
“once  for  all”  (a ?ra£,  €0&7ra£,  words  of  frequent  repe¬ 
tition  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews) .  When  our  Lord 
shall  appear  again,  it  shall  not  be  as  “Sin-offering” 
(cp.  II.  Cor.  v.  2 1)  or  as  Maker  of  Atonement,  but 
as  King  and  as  Saviour,  —  “unto  salvation.”  He 
shall  appear  as  our  Deliverer  from  mortality  and 
from  all  fleshly  imperfection  into  the  glory  of  that 
“indissoluble  life”  which  He  has  Himself  already 
achieved.1  Inasmuch  as  our  High-priest  has  already 
“entered  into  heaven  itself,”  we,  on  our  part,  have 
“boldness”  for  this  “entry,”  even  though  we  do 

1  This  glorious  appearance  of  our  Redeemer  was  foreshadowed 
by  the  appearance  of  the  high-priest  of  old,  and  by  his  blessing  of 
“the  congregation  of  the  sons  of  Israel.”  This,  —  which  was  the 
culmination  of  the  whole  worship  of  God’s  ancient  people,  —  is 
eloquently  described  by  the  Son  of  Sirach  (Ecclus.  1.)  in  speaking 
of  Simon  the  high- priest,  the  son  of  Onias:  —  “How  was  he  honoured 
in  the  midst  of  the  people  in  his  coming  out  of  the  sanctuary !  He  was 
as  the  morning  star  in  the  midst  of  a  cloud,  and  as  the  moon  at  the 
full;  As  the  sun  shining  upon  the  temple  of  the  Most  High,  and  as 
the  rainbow  giving  light  in  the  bright  clouds  .  .  .  and  as  a  fair  olive- 
tree  budding  forth  fruit,  and  as  a  cypress-tree  which  groweth  up  to 
the  clouds.  When  he  put  on  the  robe  of  honour,  and  was  clothed 
with  the  perfection  of  glory,  when  he  went  up  to  the  holy  altar, 
he  made  the  garment  of  holiness  honourable  ....  Then  he  went  down, 
and  lifted  up  his  hands  over  the  whole  congregation  of  the  children 
of  Israel,  to  give  the  blessing  of  the  Lord  with  his  lips,  and  to  rejoice 
in  his  Name”  (vss.  5-11,20). 


CHRIST  AS  OUR  HIGH-PRIEST 


17 


not  ourselves  as  yet  personally  set  foot  within  the 
Holy  Place.  Yet  in  effect  we  even  now  do  this,  in 
the  Person  of  our  Representative.  When  we  shall 
ourselves  personally,  i.e.  in  the  body  stand  in  God’s 
immediate  Presence,  there  will  be  no  more  temple  or 
sanctuary;  for  temple  and  altar  shall  then  have  been 
superseded  by  that  Presence  of  God  Himself  and  of 
the  Lamb  (see  Rev.  xxi.  22). 

To  “ stand,”  to  “pass  through,”  to  “enter  in,” 
to  “sit  down”  and,  finally,  to  come  forth  or  “ap¬ 
pear,”  —  these  are  the  characteristic  acts  and  atti¬ 
tudes  which  sum  up  and  represent  our  Lord’s  priestly 
work  on  our  behalf. 

And  this  brings  us  finally  to  the  consideration  of 
“heaven”  or  “the  heavenly  places”  (ra  eirovpavLa) 
as  the  sphere  of  our  Lord’s  priestly  ministration. 
The  “heavenly  places”  (a  frequent  phrase  in  the 
writings  of  St.  Paul)  are  so  called  not  in  opposition 
to  or  as  exclusive  of  the  places  of  earth,  —  i.e.  of  this 
visible  sphere  of  our  present  existence,  —  although 
this  is  a  very  common  misapprehension.  In  order 
to  understand  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  we  must 
grasp  the  idea  that  the  “heavenly  places”  include 
the  earth,  even  as  the  Tabernacle  of  old  included 
its  outer  court.  All  are  called  'heavenly’  places 
inasmuch  as  they  are  denominated  from  their 
centre  and  'fulcrum’  —  so  to  speak  —  the  place  of 
God’s  immediate  Presence.  That  is  the  “Most 
Holy”  Place.  But  it  is  such  not  because  it  is 
“heaven,”  but  because  of  God’s  presence  there. 


i8 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


It  is  upon  God’s  all-sanctifying  Presence,  not  upon 
any  special  place  as  such,  that  the  emphasis  must 
always  be  laid.  And  that  Presence  can  be  ap¬ 
proached  only  through  the  removal  of  sin;  com¬ 
pare  ch.  xii.  14,  —  “follow  after  .  .  .  the  sanctifi¬ 
cation  without  which  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord,” 
with  vss.  28,  29,  —  “Let  us  have  grace  whereby 
we  may  offer  service  well-pleasing  to  God,  with 
reverence  and  godly  fear;  for  our  God  is  a  con¬ 
suming  fire.”  God’s  Throne,  moreover,  is  not  tied 
to  any  one  locality.  It  is  represented  in  the  visions 
of  Ezekiel  as  movable;  borne  by  the  living,  swift¬ 
flying  cherubim;  resting  upon  wheels  which  them¬ 
selves  were  moved  from  within  by  the  “spirit  of 
the  living  creature”  (Ezek.  i.  20,  21).  Heaven  it¬ 
self  shall  in  due  time  pass  away,  even  as  this  time¬ 
worn  earth;  but  the  Throne  of  God  shall  never 
pass  away;  it  shall  be  established  forever  in  “the 
city  that  hath  the  foundations”  (tt]v  tovs  0e,u€- 
Xiovs  exovaav  itoXlv)  —  that  City  for  which  holy 
men  of  old  looked  and  longed  (xi.  10,  13-16). 
That  City  is  now  called  4 heavenly’  ClepovaaXrux 
eTrovpavLcp ,  xii.  22),  in  so  far  as  its  present  locus  is 
in  heaven;  but  in  St.  John’s  vision  of  the  hereafter 
it  is  spoken  of  simply  as  the  “new”  or  “holy” 
Jerusalem,  and  is  represented  as  “coming  down 
out  of  heaven”  to  the  new  earth  (cp.  Rev.  iii.  12 

with  xxi.  10) }  It  is  not  that  heaven  as  such  is  an 

\ 

1  St.  Paul’s  use  of  the  expression  ra  k-irovpa.vi.oL  is  perfectly  in 
accord  with  the  usage  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews;  comp,  also 


THE  DIVINE-HUMAN  PERSON  OF  CHRIST  19 


eternal  sphere;  for  we  find  it  expressly  declared, 
“Yet  once  more  I  shake  not  the  earth  only,  but 
also  heaven.  And  this  ‘Yet  once  more’  signifieth 
the  removing  of  those  things  that  are  shaken,  as  of 
things  that  are  made,  that  the  things  that  are 
not  shaken  may  remain.  Wherefore  we,”  as  the 
Writer  goes  on  in  his  exhortation,  —  “receiving  a 
kingdom  that  cannot  be  moved,  let  us  have  grace 
whereby  we  may  offer  service  well-pleasing  to  God, 
with  reverence  and  godly  fear”  (xii.  26-28).  This 
is  to  the  same  effect  with  our  Lord’s  declaration,  — 
“Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away,  but  my  words 
shall  not  pass  away.” 


iii.  THE  PERSONALITY  OF  OUR  HIGH-PRIEST  AS 
DIVINE  AND  AS  HUMAN 

The  twofold  aspect  of  our  Lord’s  Person  as  the 
Divine  ‘Son’  and  as  the  human  ‘Jesus’  is  illustrated 
by  the  typology  of  the  Old  Testament  Tabernacle, 
and  is  also  witnessed  by  the  Creeds  of  the  Christian 
Church.  Let  us  briefly  consider  the  evidence  in 
both  these  directions.  As  has  already  been  stated, 
it  was  not  only  the  Old  Testament  high-priest 

the  following  statements:  —  “If  our  earthly  house  of  this  taber¬ 
nacle  were  dissolved,  we  have  a  building  (olKoSoidjv)  from  God,  a 
house  not  made  with  hands,  eternal,  in  the  heavens  .  .  .  our 
habitation  ( olk^ttjplov )  which  is  from  heaven  (II.  Cor.  v.  1,  2). 
St.  Paul  represents  our  “citizenship”  as  even  now  “in  heaven, 
from  whence  also  we  expect  a  Saviour,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ” 
(Phil.  iii.  20). 


20 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


(whether  Melchizedek  or  Aaron)  who  foreshadowed 
our  Lord  in  His  mediatorial  Person  and  offices. 
The  sacred  Tabernacle  as  well  (including  the  Court 
in  which  it  stood)  typifies  the  Person  of  Christ 
both  in  His  Divinity  and  in  His  human  nature. 
Just  as  in  the  Mosaic  Tabernacle  (and  afterwards 
in  the  Temple)  there  was  the  inner  shrine  and  also 
the  outer  court,  and  as  even  within  the  Tent  itself 
the  part  within  the  veil  was  separated  from  the 
part  without,  and  was  thus  declared  “most  holy,” 
so,  in  the  unity  of  our  Lord’s  Person  it  is  the 
Godhead  which  is  the  inner  shrine,  so  to  speak, 
whereof  the  Manhood  is  the  appanage  or  adjunct. 
At  the  same  time,  just  as  the  outer  court  of  the 
Tabernacle  constituted  an  essential  part  of  the 
Holy  Place,  so  the  human  element,  —  the  Man¬ 
hood,  —  is  essential  to  the  completeness  of  our 
Lord’s  personality  as  the  God-man.  It  was  in 
the  court  of  the  Tabernacle  that  the  brazen  altar 
stood,  —  the  primary  locus  of  all  atonement  and 
sacrifice,  —  and  also  the  brazen  laver  of  purification. 
The  outer  court  of  the  Tabernacle,  then,  typifies 
the  human  aspect  of  our  Lord’s  office  and  Person; 
cp.  the  words  of  St.  John  (I.  Ep.  v.  6),  “This  is  he 
that  came  by  water”  (the  laver,  symbolizing 
Christian  Baptism)  “and  blood”  (pointing  forward 
to  Christ’s  atonement  for  our  sins).  Again;  the 
brass  of  which  the  altar  of  burnt-offering,  the 
laver  and  the  accompanying  instruments  of  service 
were  composed  is  the  emblem  of  our  Lord’s  hu- 


THE  DIVINE-HUMAN  PERSON  OF  CHRIST  21 


manity;  of  His  Divine  nature,  gold  is  the  type. 
Gold  was  used  in  the  inner  shrine  as  the  material 
for  all  its  sacred  instruments  of  worship  and  of 
service,  —  the  candlestick,  the  table  of  shew-bread, 
the  altar  of  incense,  —  as  also  of  the  censer  and 
the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  itself.  The  entire  Tab¬ 
ernacle  and  the  Tabernacle  as  a  whole  is  the  type 
of  Christ,  in  whom,  as  in  the  sacred  Tent  of  old, 
God  Himself  dwells  and  manifests  His  Presence. 

The  personality  of  the  eternal  Son  is  in  itself 
Divine,  not  human,  —  and  yet  within  His  Person 
a  human  element  is  included.  The  humanity  — 
the  “flesh”  —  is  a  vesture  which  He  has  assumed; 
which,  indeed,  He  has  assumed  forever,  —  for 
that  mortal  flesh  of  His  was  by  His  Resurrection 
transformed  and  glorified  and  made  immortal. 
Our  Lord’s  humanity  is  never  to  be  laid  aside; 
He  is  “Jesus  Christ,  the  same  yesterday  and  to-day 
and  forever”  (xiii.  8).  And  yet  His  flesh  is,  so 
to  speak,  exterior  to  His  Divine  Personality  itself. 
In  the  words  of  the  ‘Athanasian’  Creed,  —  “For, 
as  the  reasonable  soul  and  flesh  is  one  man,  so 
God  and  man  is  one  Christ.”  And  as  the  ‘flesh’ 
is  external  to  the  proper  Divine  nature  as  such,  so 
the  death  of  the  body,  as  a  physical  crisis,  is  a  fact 
in  some  sort  exterior  to  the  consciousness  of  the 
Divine  Son.  Death,  when  it  occurred,  occurred 
as  a  thing  outside  of  His  inmost,  Divine  nature. 
It  was  not  as  pure  Godhead  but  as  the  “God-man” 
that  He  “vanquished  death  by  dying.” 


22 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


From  one  point  of  view,  indeed,  it  is  true  that 
“the  flesh”  is  exterior  even  to  our  human  person¬ 
ality.  We,  too,  sometimes  sing  the  hymn, 
“It  is  not  death  to  die;  — 

“  It  is  not  death  to  fling 
Aside  this  sinful  dust 
And  rise ,  on  strong ,  exulting  wing, 

To  live  among  the  just.” 

The  flesh  is  the  tabernacle  of  the  spirit.  Ac¬ 
cordingly,  St.  Peter  says,  —  “I  think  it  meet,  so 
long  as  I  am  in  this  tabernacle  .  .  .  knowing  that 
shortly  I  must  put  off  this  my  tabernacle,  even 
as  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  hath  showed  me”  (II. 
Pet.  i.  13,  14). 

Now  it  is  a  noteworthy  fact  that  in  the  Nicene 
Creed  (which  embodies  the  theology  of  the  Eternal 
Son)  our  Lord  is  neither  said  to  have  been  ‘born’ 
nor  to  have  4 died.’  This  is,  of  course,  in  striking 
contrast  with  the  language  of  the  Apostles’  Creed. 
The  Nicene  Creed  declares  our  Lord  to  have 
‘come  down’  (from  heaven)  and  to  have  ‘become 
incarnate’  (crapKudevTa),  and  to  have  ‘put  on  man’ 
(evavdpooTTTjaaPTa),  i.e.  to  have  “  manned  Himself,” 
so  to  speak.  But  His  Personality  remained  even 
after  this  act  of  condescension  just  what  it  was 
before,  —  the  Personality  of  the  Divine  Son,  — 
of  Him  who  has  “neither  beginning  of  days  nor 
end  of  life”  (Hebr.  vii.  3).  This  is  the  standpoint 


THE  DIVINE-HUMAN  PERSON  OF  CHRIST  23 


of  the  Nicene  Creed.  Again,  according  to  the 
statement  of  this  Creed,  our  Lord  “suffered  and 
was  buried.”  There  is  here  no  direct  statement 
of  His  death .  So,  in  the  magnificent  characteriza¬ 
tion  of  the  Divine  Son  in  the  first  chapter  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  our  Lord  is  simply  said 
to  have  “made  purification  of  sins,”  and,  after 
that,  to  have  “sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of  the 
Majesty  on  high.” 

As  the  Nicene  Creed  more  especially  interprets 
the  eternal  nature  and  personality  of  Christ  as 
the  Divine  Son,  so  the  Apostles’  Creed  is  the  creed 
of  His  humanity.  The  standpoint  of  the  Nicene 
Creed  remains  to  this  day  the  standpoint  of  the 
Orthodox  Church  of  Greece  and  of  Russia;  it  is 
as  the  Divine  Son  rather  than  as  the  human  Jesus 
that  our  Lord  is  chiefly  envisaged  and  contem¬ 
plated. 

Returning  now  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
the  unity  of  our  Lord’s  priesthood  is  there  seen  in 
His  ‘perfecting’  or  ‘consecration,’  and  rests  ulti¬ 
mately  upon  the  unity  of  His  Person.  In  ch.  iv. 
vs.  14  “Jesus”  is  identified  with  “the  Son  of  God.” 
In  ch.  v.  vs.  6  the  “Son”  is  solemnly  addressed 
as  “priest  for  ever  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek.” 
Again,  we  are  told  (vi.  20  and  vii.  20-22)  that 
Jesus  hath  become  “a  high  priest  forever”  after 
the  same  transcendent  order.  Our  Melchizedek  is 
therefore  Man,  while  at  the  same  time  He  is  more 
than  man.  While  “the  Law  appointeth  men  high- 


24 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


priests,  which  have  infirmity,  the  word  of  the  oath” 
(in  contrast  thereto)  “appointeth  a  Son ,  perfected 
forevermore”  (vii.  28). 

There  is  a  sense  in  which  our  Lord  possesses 
human  personality ,  as  well  as  human  nature.  He 
has  had  a  human  life-experience,  and  He  still  pos¬ 
sesses  a  human  consciousness  as  the  Son  of  Man. 
In  chapter  ii.  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  which 
exhibits  our  Lord  in  His  humanity  (as  chapter  i. 
had  exhibited  Him  in  His  Divine  nature  as  Son), 
it  is  assumed  to  start  with  that  Jesus  is  a  member 
of  our  race.  It  is  not  (as  Nestorius  mistakenly 
imagined)  that  Christ  existed  first  as  a  separate 
human  person,  who  was  afterward  united  with  the 
Son  of  God;  but  it  is  that  He  is  as  truly  Man  from 
His  birth  as  though  He  were  not  at  the  same  time 
(as  He  is)  the  Son  of  God.  As  Jesus  Christ,  He 
has  His  ‘genesis,’ — His  ‘beginning,’1  —  as  other 
men  have  theirs,  even  though  His  inmost  Person¬ 
ality  is  uncreated  and  eternal,  and  although  the 
manner  of  His  coming  into  the  world  was  different 
from  our  own,  and  such  as  befitted  a  Divine  Person. 
This  difference  in  similarity  in  the  manner  of  our 
Lord’s  birth  is  clearly  implied  by  the  language  of  vs. 
14  of  chap.  ii.  (TapaTXrjaicos).  Christ  is  a  human 
Person  just  as  truly  as  He  is  a  Divine  Person, 
“yet  not  therefore  two  persons  in  one,”  as  Hooker 
so  wisely  says,  echoing  the  language  of  the  Third 

1  Cp.  St.  Matt.  i.  I,  —  Bt/3Aos  yevkaews  ’I^aou  'X.pto’Tov,  vtov  A  avid, 
vlov  *A fipaap'y  also  VS.  18,  —  tov  8e  ’I qcrod  XpLarov  rj  ykveais  ovtus  fjv. 


THE  DIVINE-HUMAN  PERSON  OF  CHRIST  25 


General  Council  (a.  d.  431).  While  from  the  point 
of  view  of  the  eternal  ‘Son’  humanity  in  Him  is 
but  a  ‘ vesture/  —  a  ‘tabernacle/  —  from  the  point 
of  view  of  the  human  ‘Jesus’  the  humanity  is 
something  more;  it  constitutes  the  circle  of  His 
conscious  Self  as  Man.  And  is  there  not  something 
analogous  to  this  even  in  our  own  experience? 
Rise  as  we  may  above  the  flesh  in  our  higher 
moments,  nevertheless  there  are  times  when  the 
body  claims  us  again,  and  we  realize  that  we  not 
only  have  flesh  but  that  we  are  flesh.  May  we  not 
say  that  the  consciousness  of  our  Lord  has  its 
higher  and  its  lower  levels,  —  the  higher  level  of 
Divinity  and  the  lower  level  of  humanity.  And 
yet  these  two  ‘  consciousnesses  ’  are  not  separate,  — 
they  do  not  constitute  two  distinct  Persons,  —  since 
they  are  linked  by  the  unity  of  one  and  the  same 
‘Ego.’  He  it  is  who  knows  Himself  at  once  as 
human  and  as  Divine.  All  this  seems  clearly  to 
be  implied  in  the  exposition  of  our  Lord’s  per¬ 
sonality  which  is  given  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews. 

To  the  question,  therefore,  whether  our  Lord’s 
Manhood  is  to  be  regarded  as  ‘personal’  or  as 
‘impersonal’  the  language  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  appears  to  warrant  the  answer  that  both 
phrases  are  equally  valid,  according  to  the  point  of 
view.  The  manhood  is  impersonal  if  our  Lord  be 
regarded  as  the  Divine  Son;  it  is  personal  if  He  — 
the  same  Individual  —  be  regarded  as  the  human 


2  6 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


Jesus.1  And  as  the  former  is  the  standpoint  of  the 
Nicene  Creed,  the  latter  is  the  standpoint  of  the 
Apostles’  Creed.  As  the  Nicene  Creed  is  the  creed 
of  our  Lord’s  Divinity,  so  the  Apostles’  Creed  is 
the  creed  of  His  real  and  actual  Manhood.  The 
Apostles’  Creed  is  the  Church’s  historic  bulwark 
against  Gnostic  and  Docetic  error,  —  against  all 
theories  and  philosophies  which  would  undermine 
the  true  and  genuine  Manhood  of  Jesus  Christ  as 
acome  in  the  flesh”  (cp.  I.  John  iv.  2,  3).  The 
Nicene  Creed,  on  the  other  hand,  is  the  bulwark 
against  Arianism  and  Hum ani t arianism ,  —  the  er¬ 
rors  which  deny  our  Lord’s  Divinity.  It  is  preemi¬ 
nently  human  to  be  born  and  to  die;  and  it  is  upon 
just  these  human  facts  that  the  Apostles’  Creed 
lays  special  emphasis:  —  “Who  was  conceived  by 
the  Holy  Ghost,  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  suffered 
under  Pontius  Pilate,  was  crucified,  dead  and 
buried;  He  descended  into  hell ...”  He  it  is  who, 
like  ourselves,  “made  a  little  lower  than  the  angels” 
(ii.  7-9),  was,  in  that  lowly  estate  of  mortality, 
“crowned  with  glory  and  honour,  that  he,  by  the 
grace  of  God,  should  taste  of  death  for  every  man.”  2 

1  For  a  fuller  treatment  of  the  subject  of  our  Lord’s  ‘personality’ 
see  below  in  Chapter  IV,  which  deals  with  the  theology  of  the 
Person  of  Christ  (esp.  pp.  128-130). 

2  birep  iravros,  —  for  the  human  race  in  its  solidarity;  for  the 
‘whole  lump’  of  humanity. 


CHAPTER  II 


The  Theology  oe  the  Holy  Spirit 

1.  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT  AS  A  PERSON 

While  the  doctrine  concerning  God  and  the 
theology  of  the  Incarnation  have  been  developed 
through  the  labors  of  successive  generations,  to  a 
certain  degree  of  fulness,  that  region  of  Christian 
thought  which  has  to  do  with  the  Person  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  with  His  relation  to  the  Risen 
and  glorified  Christ  has  thus  far  remained  less 
thoroughly  surveyed  and  charted  than  have  other 
regions.  And  it  is  an  unfortunate  fact  that  while 
comparatively  little  has  been  set  forth  by  way  of 
official,  dogmatic  statement  concerning  the  per¬ 
sonality  and  nature  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  that  little 
should  reveal  the  existence  of  a  serious  divergence 
of  views  as  between  two  great  sections  of  the 
Church,  —  namely,  the  Greek  Orthodox  and  Latin 
or  Western  Catholicism.  It  is  a  notorious  fact 
that  one  primary  cause  which  led  to  the  great 
schism  between  East  and  West  in  the  ninth  and 
following  centuries  was  the  dispute  concerning  the 
‘  single’  or  ‘ double  procession’  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  — 
the  Greeks  confining  themselves  to  the  statement 

27 


28 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


that  the  Holy  Spirit  “proceedeth  from  the  Father,” 
the  Latins,  on  the  other  hand,  affirming  that  He 
“ proceedeth  from  the  Father  and  the  Son.”  Is 
it  not  possible  that  this  doctrine  concerning  the 
Holy  Spirit,  —  this  original  “  apple  of  discord,”  — 
may,  when  studied  and  interpreted  afresh  in  the 
light  of  advancing  spiritual  knowledge,  even  come 
to  lend  effective  aid  not  only  toward  a  better  un¬ 
derstanding  as  between  those  two  great  communions 
which  were  parties  to  the  original  controversy,  but 
may  in  general  become  a  means  of  setting  forward 
the  wished-for  unity  of  Christendom?  That  were 
indeed  a  “ consummation  devoutly  to  be  wished”; 
nay,  more,  one  to  be  most  earnestly  hoped  and 
prayed  for. 

The  New  Testament  teaching  concerning  the 
Person  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  especially  to  be  found 
in  the  Gospel  according  to  St.  John,  together  with 
certain  passages  in  St.  Paul’s  Epistles,  among  which 
the  eighth  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  is 
of  primary  importance.  It  is  in  the  words  of  our 
Lord  as  reported  in  St.  John’s  Gospel  that  the 
foundation  is  laid  for  all  right  conceptions  con¬ 
cerning  the  Person  and  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
So  true  is  this,  that,  while  the  Fourth  Gospel  is 
generally  recognized  as  par  excellence  the  Gospel 
of  the  Incarnation,  it  would  be  equally  true  to 
regard  those  chapters  which  record  the  closing  dis¬ 
course  of  Christ  to  His  disciples  and  His  great 
high-priestly  prayer  (chapters  xiii.-xvii.)  as  in  a 


THE  HOLY  SPIRIT  AS  A  PERSON 


29 


special  and  preeminent  sense  the  Gospel  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  Our  Lord  is  of  right  the  authoritative 
Teacher  concerning  the  personality  and  work  of 
Him  whom  He  was  about  to  send  to  take  His  own 
place  in  the  hearts  and  souls  of  His  disciples. 
What,  then,  does  our  Lord  teach  us  in  that  closing 
discourse  which  He  uttered  on  the  last  night  which 
He  spent  with  His  disciples  upon  earth?  In  view 
of  His  own  departure  into  heaven,  our  Lord  tells 
of  One  who  is  to  take  His  place  as  another  “Com¬ 
forter”  or  Paraclete,  and,  in  the  same  breath,  He 
speaks  of  His  own  speedy  return  to  His  disciples. 
The  advent  of  this  “Comforter”  is  conditioned  upon 
Christ’s  own  return  to  the  Father.  It  is  the  Father 
who  is  to  send  this  Paraclete,  but  the  Paraclete  is 
to  be  sent  and  is  to  come  in  Christ’s  Name.  This 
expression  “in  my  Name”  is  highly  significant. 
As  Christ  had  come  in  the  Father’s  Name 
(Jno.  v.  43)  so  the  Spirit  is  to  come  in  the  Name 
of  Christ.  The  phrase  points  to  an  essential  unity 
as  between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  on  the  one 
hand,  and,  on  the  other,  as  between  Christ  and  the 
promised  Paraclete.  So  perfect  is  this  unity  that 
Christ  can  say,  on  the  one  hand,  “He  that  hath 
seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father,”  and,  on  the  other, 
can  speak  of  the  coming  of  the  Comforter  as  His 
own  advent  in  invisible,  spiritual  form.  “Yet  a 
little  while  and  the  world  beholdeth  me  no  more, 
but  ye  behold  me;  because  I  live,  and  ye  shall 
live  also  (xiv.  19,  R.  V.marg.).  And  again;  — “A  little 


30 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


while  and  ye  shall  not  behold  me  ( ov  deoopeire  pe)  and 
again  a  little  while  and  ye  shall  see  me  (oi/zeade  pe) 
because  I  go  to  the  Father.”  Christ  is  not  leaving 
His  disciples  “ orphans”  (xiv.  18,  see  the  Greek); 
He  Himself  is  coming  to  them.  We  may  say  that 
not  even  a  Divine  Person  could  take  Christ’s  place 
in  the  minds  and  hearts  of  His  disciples  unless  that 
Person  was  in  some  real  sense  identical  with  Jesus 
Christ  Himself.  No  one  who  was  absolutely  and 
utterly  another  could  ever  be  a  substitute  for 
Him.  But  this  Paraclete  is  not  ‘  another/  or  rather, 
while  in  a  certain  sense  Another,  is  at  the  same 
time  in  an  equally  real  sense,  the  Same.  Further¬ 
more,  the  promised  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  will  be 
at  the  same  time  a  continuation  of  the  work  of  Jesus 
Christ  Himself.  “  I  have  yet  many  things  to  say 
unto  you,  but  ye  cannot  bear  them  now.”  None 
the  less,  our  Lord  clearly  implies  that  it  is  He  Him¬ 
self  who  will  say  these  things  to  the  disciples  in  due 
time,  and  not  merely  that  Another  shall  say  them 
for  Him.  It  is  quite  in  line  wdth  this  thought  that 
St.  Luke,  in  beginning  his  history  of  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles  (which  book  has  rightly  been  termed 
“the  Acts  of  the  Holy  Ghost”)  refers  to  the  ac¬ 
tivities  of  our  Lord’s  earthly  life  by  the  phrase 
“all  that  Jesus  began  to  do  and  to  teach.” 

The  coming  of  the  Paraclete,  as  we  have  seen, 
was  conditioned  upon  Christ’s  return  to  the  Father. 
Does  this  mean  simply  that  our  Lord  must  with¬ 
draw  His  bodily  presence  from  His  disciples  in  order, 


THE  HOLY  SPIRIT  AS  A  PERSON 


3 1 


as  it  were,  to  make  room  for  the  presence  of  that 
“ other  Comforter”?  By  no  means  is  this  to  be 
supposed.  Rather  are  we  to  recognize  in  Christ’s 
return  to  His  Father  a  certain  spiritual  and 
even  metaphysical  necessity,  having  relation  to  the 
Person  of  our  Lord  Himself.  Somehow  a  change 
must  take  place  within  the  sphere  of  Christ’s 
own  personality  before  the  promised  Comforter 
could  come  to  the  disciples.  And  in  order  that 
this  change  might  be  wrought  it  was  necessary 
that  Christ  should  return  to  the  Father.  It  is  true, 
indeed,  that  the  Divine  Spirit  was  already  “  pro¬ 
ceeding  from  the  Father”  (xv.  26)  but  from  another 
point  of  view  we  are  told  that  “the  Holy  Ghost  was 
not  yet  (outco  Tap  rjv  H^eDpa  aytov)  because  Jesus 
was  not  yet  glorified”  (vii.  39).  In  order  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  might  be  given,  it  was  necessary  that 
our  Lord’s  glorification  must  first  have  taken  place. 
It  becomes  needful,  therefore,  to  ask,  What  was 
our  Lord’s  ‘glorification’?  and  what  did  it  involve? 
What  change,  moreover,  did  this  ‘glorification’ 
imply  in  the  relation  which  the  Holy  Spirit  sus¬ 
tained  to  the  person  of  Christ?  The  answer  to 
these  questions  concerns  our  Christology  as  much 
as  it  does  the  theology  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Now  in  order  to  find  the  answer  to  these  ques¬ 
tions,  we  must  go  back  to  our  Lord’s  baptism,  and 
consider  the  relation  which  originally  subsisted 
between  the  Divine  Spirit  and  the  person  of  the 
Son  of  Man.  The  relation  that  originally  subsisted 


32 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


between  the  Divine  Spirit  and  the  person  of  Jesus 
is  indicated  by  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Dove  upon 
the  Saviour  at  His  baptism  in  the  river  Jordan. 
The  Son  of  Man  became  from  that  time  in  an 
especial  manner  under  the  control  and  direction  of 
the  Spirit  of  God.  God  “anointed  Jesus  of  Naza¬ 
reth  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  power,  who 
went  about  doing  good,  and  healing  all  that  were 
oppressed  of  the  devil;  for  God  was  with  him” 
(Acts  x.  38).  These  words  have  their  application 
to  our  Lord  in  His  human  personality  as  Son  of 
Man;  they  are  not  spoken  of  Him  as  the  Divine 
“Logos”  or  Eternal  Son. 

It  is  a  most  significant  fact  that  Jesus  is  not 
said  to  have  communicated  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
others  until  after  His  Resurrection  and  glorification. 
During  the  period  that  He  was  Himself  under  the 
control  and  direction  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  He  did 
not  impart  that  Spirit  to  others.  We  are  told  that 
“Jesus  himself  baptized  not,  but  his  disciples” 
(Jno.  iv.  2).  Nor  did  Jesus,  like  Moses,  lay  His 
hands  upon  Other  men  that  they  might  thereby 
receive  a  portion  of  the  same  Spirit  which  rested 
upon  Him.  But  on  His  very  first  appearance  to 
the  disciples  after  His  Resurrection  we  are  told 
that  He  “breathed  on  them,”  saying,  “Receive  ye 
the  Holy  Ghost”  (Jno.  xx.  22).  The  Divine  Spirit 
is  now  for  the  first  time  conveyed  through  the 
medium  of  the  human  spirit  of  Jesus.  This  was 
the  pledge  and  first  instalment  of  that  Gift  which, 


THE  HOLY  SPIRIT  AS  A  PERSON 


33 


on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  Christ  was  about  to  confer 
upon  the  waiting  apostles. 

Our  Lord,  when  He  was  about  to  leave  the 
disciples,  had  uttered  the  prediction  that  God  was 
about  to  “glorify  the  Son  of  Man  in  himself  ” 
(ch.  xiii.  32).  In  prophetic  vision  our  Lord  was 
contemplating  His  human  life  as  having  been  al¬ 
ready  completed  by  His  death  on  the  cross.  In 
fact,  this  death  was  itself  regarded  by  our  Lord 
as  His  “glorification”;  for  this  is  the  exact  force 
of  His  words  in  chapter  xii.  23,  24;  —  “The  hour 
is  come  that  the  Son  of  Man  should  be  glorified. 
Verily,  verily  I  say  unto  you,  Except  a  corn  of 
wheat  fall  into  the  ground  and  die,  it  abideth  alone; 
but  if  it  die,  it  bringeth  forth  much  fruit.”  When 
Judas  had  gone  forth  from  the  supper-room  on  his 
errand  of  betrayal,  Jesus  said  at  once,  “Now  was 
the  Son  of  Man  glorified”  (xiii.  31,  see  R.  V.  marg.). 
The  glorification  of  the  Son  of  Man  is  contemplated 
as  having  already  been  accomplished,  and  in  the 
death  upon  Calvary  God  Himself  had  already  been 
glorified.  But  a  still  “more  exceeding  weight  of 
glory”  is  reserved  for  the  Son  of  Man.  As  a  re¬ 
ward  for  His  act  of  obedience  and  self-surrender  on 
the  cross,  God  is  about  to  glorify  the  Son  of  Man 
in  Himself  (verse  32).  This  second  ‘glorification’  is 
to  consist  in  the  fact  that  God,  in  and  by  His  own 
eternal  Spirit,  is  about  to  assume  the  human  spirit 
of  the  Son  of  Man  into  union  with  Himself.  The 
earthly  ‘glorification’  of  the  Son  of  Man  upon  the 


34 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


cross  is  to  be  succeeded  by  a  yet  higher  glorifi¬ 
cation’  in  heaven;  the  ‘ grace  of  unction’  is  about 
to  give  place  to  the  ‘  grace  of  union.’  The  self- 
denying  act  of  the  eternal  Son  of  God  in  stooping 
(in  His  Incarnation)  to  assume  our  mortal  flesh 
now  finds  a  certain  complement  in  the  assumption, 
on  the  part  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  of  the  human 
spirit  of  Jesus  into  personal  union  with  Himself. 

But  not  only  was  there  an  assumption  on  the 
part  of  the  Spirit  of  God  of  the  human  spirit  of 
Jesus  into  unity  with  Himself.  This,  which  might 
be  called  the  ‘passive’  aspect  of  our  Saviour’s 
glorification,  finds  its  complement  in  what  may  be 
regarded  as  the  active  appropriation  by  the  Risen 
and  exalted  Lord  of  the  Spirit  as  belonging  to  His 
own  personality.  That  Spirit  has,  indeed,  always 
been  His,  —  has  always  existed  as  the  Spirit  of 
the  Son,  —  but  now  for  the  first  time  the  fact  is 
clearly  manifested,  and  thus  the  Son  is  “  glorified.” 
And  the  evidence  of  this  glorification  of  Christ  is 
in  the  Pentecostal  Gift  of  the  Spirit  bestowed  upon 
His  Church.  It  was  not  until  this  revelation  of  the 
relation  of  Christ  to  the  Holy  Spirit  had  been  made 
that  our  Lord  could  (in  the  Divine  dispensation) 
impart  to  others  that  Spirit  which  has  now  in  a 
peculiar  and  intimate  sense  become  identified  with 
Himself.  Or  rather,  it  is  the  impartation  of  that 
Spirit  to  the  disciples,  —  that  is,  to  the  Church,  — 
which  is  itself  the  evidence  that  Christ  and  the 
Spirit  are  One.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  henceforward 


THE  HOLY  SPIRIT  AS  A  PERSON 


35 


to  be  recognized  as  a  Divine-human  Life  and  Power 
proceeding  from  the  Person  of  the  Risen  and 
glorified  Christ.  The  Spirit  of  God  is  now  recog¬ 
nized  as  the  “Spirit  of  Christ,”  —  the  “Spirit  of 
Jesus”  (Acts  xvi.  7,  R.  V.,  Rom.  viii.  9).  Before 
our  Lord’s  glorification,  the  Holy  Spirit  had  existed 
as  simply  Divine  and  transcendent;  now,  in  con¬ 
sequence  of  that  glorification,  the  same  Holy  Spirit 
appears  also  under  a  human  aspect,  in  so  far  as 
He  is  personally  united  with  the  human  spirit  of 
the  Risen  and  glorified  Jesus. 

The  theological  implications  of  this  fact  will  be 
seen  at  once  to  be  most  important.  If  we  are  to 
understand  the  glorification  of  Christ  as  a  mutual 
appropriation  on  the  part  of  the  exalted  Lord  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  each  of  the  very  spirit  and  life 
of  the  other,  the  result  of  such  a  mutual  exchange 
can  hardly  be  described  otherwise  than  as  a  re¬ 
ciprocal  personality.  Furthermore,  the  (human) 
spirit  of  Jesus  and  the  Divine  Spirit  of  God  are, 
each  of  them,  bi-personal,  in  so  far  as  they  are 
henceforward  seen  to  be  shared  by  two  Persons,  — 
Christ  and  “the  Spirit.”  The  Life  of  God,  identi¬ 
fied  with  the  Person  of  Christ  (“for  the  Life  was 
manifested,  and  we  have  seen,  and  bear  witness, 
and  declare  unto  you  the  Life,  the  eternal  (Life) 
which  was  with  the  Father,  and  was  manifested 
unto  us”1)  is  also  identified  with  the  Person  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.  Moreover,  the  human  spirit  of 

1  I.  John  i.  2. 


36 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


Jesus  has  now  become  ‘quickening  spirit’ 
(I.  Cor.  xv.  45)  having  been  renewed  and  fructified 
by  Him  who  is  “the  Lord  and  Giver  of  Life”; 
it  becomes  the  channel  and  instrument  whereby 
the  Divine  Spirit  and  Life  is  communicated  to  the 
members  of  His  Body,  the  Church.  For  “he  hath 
ascended  up  far  above  all  heavens,  that  he  might 
fill  all  things.”  1  In  fine,  from  being  “the  Christ,” 
—  the  Anointed  One,  upon  whom  the  Spirit  rests 
and  abides,  —  our  Lord  has  now  become  “Christ” 
simply,  —  He  with  whom  the  Spirit  is  identified. 
The  Christ-/^  has  now  become  the  Christ -name. 

The  glorification  of  Christ  was  not  an  apotheosis 
in  the  sense  of  a  change  or  transformation  of  the 
human  nature ,  as  such,  into  the  Divine.  In  the 
New  Testament  the  distinction  between  the  Divine 
and  the  human  is  never  broken  down  or  ignored. 
The  universal  gracious  presence  of  Christ,  the  Sec¬ 
ond  Adam,  as  ‘quickening  Spirit’  (I.  Cor.  xv.  45) 
is  not  the  same  as  the  Divine  omnipresence.  It 
is  a  sanctifying  presence  which  is  realized  by  faith 
in  Him,  the  Risen  Lord.  We  must  guard  against 
the  idea  that  the  human  spirit  of  Christ  as  such 
is  transformed  or  evolved  into  the  Divine  and 
eternal  Spirit  of  God.2  Moreover,  the  person  of  the 
glorified  Christ  remains  distinct  from  the  person 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  even  as  the  human  spirit  in 
Him  remains  essentially  and  forever  distinct  from 
the  Divine. 


1  Eph.  iv.  10. 


2  See  p.  63,  fol.  below. 


THE  HOLY  SPIRIT  AS  A  PERSON 


37 


It  is  evident  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
at  once  serves  to  interpret  and  is  itself  interpreted 
by  the  doctrine  concerning  Christ  (Christology). 
The  two  doctrines  are  in  fact  complementary,  even 
as  the  Holy  Spirit  exists  as  the  ‘alter  ego’  of  Christ. 
It  must,  however,  be  observed  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
is  not  directly  incarnate;  His  union  with  the  Per¬ 
son  of  Christ  is  primarily  in  the  spiritual  sphere. 
Yet  what  relation  could  be  more  intimate  than 
that  which  we  have  ventured  to  characterize  as 
‘reciprocal  personality 7  —  the  relation  which  sub¬ 
sists  between  ‘the  Spirit’  and  the  glorified  Christ? 
Is  Christ  “the  Holy  One  of  God”?1  —  the 
Spirit  is  also  characterized  as  God’s  ‘Holy  One’2 
(Eph.  iv.  30,  cp.  Eph.  i.  13).  Is  Jesus  Christ 
‘the  Lord’  (6  K vpcos)?  —  the  Holy  Ghost  is  (in 
the  Nicene  Creed)  recognized  as  the  ‘Sovereign’ 
Spirit  (to  K vpiov).  Jesus  has  now  become  ‘Lord’ 
and  ‘Christ’;  the  Holy  Ghost  has  now  become 
‘the  Paraclete.’  As  the  personality  of  the  eternal 
Word  or  Son  of  God  has  been  manifested  through 
the  Incarnation  and  the  earthly  life  of  Jesus  Christ, 
so  the  personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost  becomes  mani¬ 
fest  through  His  office  and  work  as  the  Comforter. 
It  is  in  connection  with  this  name  of  ‘Paraclete’ 
that  our  Lord  applies  to  the  Holy  Spirit  those 
pronouns  (auros,  heivos)  which  indicate  personal, 
conscious  existence  and  activity.  The  office  of  the 
Paraclete  is  declared  by  our  Lord  to  be  interpreta- 

1  6  "Ayios  roD  0eou.  2  rd  "Ayi ov  rod  0eou. 


38 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


live.  The  Spirit  of  Him  who  has  just  declared 
Himself  to  His  disciples  to  be  “The  Truth,”  —  “the 
Spirit  of  the  Truth”  (to  Uved/ia  rr/s  a\r]0eLas)  shall 
not  speak  from  himself,  but  whatsoever  he  shall 
hear  that  shall  he  speak”  (Jno.  xvi.  13).  In  other 
words,  the  Holy  Ghost  is  not  to  appear  as  a  sep¬ 
arate  and  independent  Source  of  authority,  just 
as  our  Lord  Himself  (as  Son)  did  not,  —  indeed, 
could  not  speak  or  act  apart  from  the  Father 
(ch.  xiv.  10;  cp.  v.  19,  30).  The  Spirit’s  teaching 
office  is  prophetic;  “He  shall  show  you  things  to 
come.”  And  the  scope  of  His  teaching  is  deter¬ 
mined  by  the  limits  of  what  is  specifically  Christian; 
its  object  is  to  reveal  and  glorify  Christ.  “He 
shall  glorify  me;  for  he  shall  receive  of  mine  and 
shall  declare  it  unto  you.” 

And  now  as  to  the  relation  which  the  Holy  Spirit 
sustains  to  ourselves: — The  Holy  Spirit  inhabits  and 
animates  the  Church  as  the  human  spirit  inhabits 
and  animates  the  body.  As  the  Church  is  said  to 
be  the  “Body  of  Christ,”  so  the  all-animating 
Spirit  who  dwells  within  the  Church  is  Christ’s 
Spirit.  He  is  the  Spirit  within  the  Body;  He  is 
the  Spirit  of  the  Body  only  in  so  far  as  the  Body 
is  conceived  of  as  including  the  Head  (cp.  Rom. 
xii.  4,  5;  I.  Cor.  xii.  13;  Eph.  iv.  4).  The  Holy 
Ghost  is  the  Spirit  of  the  Church  because  He  is 
the  Spirit  of  Christ.  It  is  to  be  remembered  that 
while  the  Church  is  a  ‘person’  only  in  a  metaphor¬ 
ical  sense,  the  Holy  Ghost  is  literally  and  really  a 


THE  HOLY  SPIRIT  AS  A  PERSON 


39 


Person.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  never  impersonal; 
He  is  never  a  mere  Power  or  Force  or  Energy.  His 
personality,  moreover,  is  never  to  be  confused  with 
our  own.  Though  dwelling  within  those  who  are 
God’s  children,  He  ever  remains  personally  distinct 
from  themselves.  “The  Spirit  himself  beareth 
witness  with  our  spirit  that  we  are  children  of 
God”  (Rom.  viii.  16  R.  V.);  but  never  is  the  Divine 
Spirit  confused  or  amalgamated  with  our  created 
personalities.  The  intimacy  of  His  relation  with 
the  spirits  of  those  who  are  called  ‘sons  of  God’  is 
indicated  in  a  remarkable  way  not  only  in  the 
eighth  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  but 
also  in  several  passages  in  other  Epistles  of  St. 
Paul.  (See  especially  I.  Cor.  xii.  4-13;  Gal.  iii.  2-5; 
v.  5,  16,  25.) 1  The  Spirit  is  the  Life  of  our  Life. 
Does  Christ  intercede  for  us  at  the  right  hand  of 
the  Father?  the  Spirit  also  “maketh  intercession 
for  us,”  from  within  the  depths  of  our  own  hearts, 
with  “groanings”  which,  though  not  physically 
articulate,  yet  are  offered  “according  to  God” 
(/card  Qeov,  Rom.  viii.  26,  27). 

If  we  have  followed  the  line  of  thought  which  I 
have  endeavored  to  indicate,  I  think  we  are  in  a 
position  to  review  the  theological  dogma  of  the 
‘procession’  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  to  recognize 
that  while  the  Divine  Spirit  eternally  proceeds 
from  the  one  ultimate  Source  of  Godhead,  —  rep- 

1  See  also  below,  p.  62. 


40 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


resented  primarily  by  the  Person  of  the  Father,  — 
yet,  as  the  Gift  which  was  bestowed  in  consequence 
of  our  Lord’s  glorification,  He  is  the  Spirit  of  the 
Divine-human  Christ,  and  proceeds  immediately 
from  Him.  Does  there  not  open  along  this  line 
the  possibility  for  a  better  understanding  as  be¬ 
tween  theological  sections  hitherto  and  for  centuries 
antagonistic?  And  is  there  not  here  an  opportunity 
for  theological  work  which,  under  God,  shall  be  in¬ 
deed  irenic  because  at  the  same  time  genuinely 
constructive?  So  understood,  the  statement  of  the 
(Greek)  Nicene  Creed,  —  “the  Holy  Ghost  pro¬ 
ceeded  from  the  Father,”  —  finds  its  equally  true 
complementary  statement  in  the  Latin  formula 
recited  at  the  Council  of  Toledo  (a.d.  589),  — 
“Filioque,” —  “and  from  the  Son.”  Our  Lord’s 
promise  was,  “If  I  depart,  I  will  send  him  unto 
you.”  And  this  promise  was  fulfilled  when,  “being 
by  the  right  hand  of  God  exalted,  and  having 
received  of  the  Father  the  promise  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,”  our  Lord  Himself  “shed  forth”  that  Spirit 
whom,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  the  assembled 
multitude  in  Jerusalem  “did  see  and  hear.”  We 
may  therefore  recite  with  full  faith  the  ancient 
Confession,  so  fresh  and  vital  in  its  meaning,  — 
“I  believe  in  the  Spirit,  —  the  Holy  (One),  the 
Sovereign,  the  Life-creating,  who  proceeded  from 
the  Father  and  the  Son;  who  with  the  Father 
and  the  Son  together  is  worshipped  and  glorified.”  1 

1  (Hurreuco)  els  to  II vedfjia  to  "Ay lov,  to  Kvplov,  to  Zcoottoiov.  .  . 


THE  LIFE  OF  THE  RISEN  CHRIST 


41 


ii.  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT  AS  THE  LIFE  OF  THE 

RISEN  CHRIST 

“  There  is  in  her  (Wisdom)  a  spirit  quick  of  understanding, 
holy,  alone  in  kind,  manifold  .  .  .  all-powerful,  all-surveying 
and  penetrating  through  all  spirits  that  are  quick  of  under¬ 
standing.  .  .  . 

“For  she  is  a  breath  of  the  power  of  God  and  a  clear 
effluence  of  the  glory  of  the  Almighty  .  .  .  and  from  gener¬ 
ation  to  generation  passing  into  holy  souls,  she  maketh  them 
friends  of  God  and  prophets.” 

WISDOM,  vii.  22-27. 

These  words  of  the  ancient  Hebrew  sage  antici¬ 
pate  the  personal  manifestation  of  the  Divine  Spirit 
whose  presence  and  power  are  attested  by  so  many 
a  page  of  Old  Testament  history  and  prophecy. 
That  personal  manifestation  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
waited  upon  the  glorification  of  the  Risen  and 
ascended  Jesus.  In  the  light  of  Christ’s  words  to 
His  disciples  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  something  more  than  a  mere  impersonal 
Force  or  influence;  He  is  spoken  of  in  terms  which 
plainly  imply  His  personal  being  and  agency.  Such 
statements  of  our  Lord  as  “He,  the  Spirit  of  Truth, 
shall  not  speak  from  himself,  but  whatsoever  he 
shall  hear,  that  shall  he  speak  ...”  or  again,  “He 
shall  glorify  me,  for  he  shall  take  of  mine  and  shall 
declare  it  unto  you”  can  only  be  spoken  of  a  person, 
—  i.e.  of  a  self-conscious  intelligence  and  will.  It 
is  the  Spirit’s  personal  relation  to  us  that  our  Lord’s 
words  emphasize,  and  especially  His  employment 


42 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


of  that  most  expressive  title  “the  Paraclete.” 
This  term  “Paraclete”  by  which  our  Lord  named 
the  Holy  Spirit  in  promising  that  Spirit’s  presence 
with  the  disciples,  is  a  most  comprehensive  title. 
Perhaps  its  most  adequate  English  equivalent  is 
the  word  Representative,’  when  this  term  is  under¬ 
stood  as  carrying  with  it  the  idea  of  ‘interpreter.’ 
Christ  is  Himself  the  original  ‘  Paraclete,  ’  —  the 
Representative  of  God  to  man  and  of  man  to  God. 
But  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  second  ‘Paraclete’  as 
our  Lord  is  the  first.  As  Jesus  Christ  is  “the  one 
Mediator  between  God  and  men,  (Himself)  being 
man,”  so  the  Holy  Spirit  mediates  between  the 
absent  Lord  Jesus  and  His  Church,  at  the  same 
time  convicting  the  world,  through  the  Church, 
—  i.e.  through  the  testimony  of  Christian  men,  — 
“of  sin,  of  righteousness  and  of  judgment.”  The 
Holy  Spirit,  while  essentially  one  with  Christ, 
is  the  personal  Representative  and  Interpreter  of 
Christ  to  Plis  Church.  And  He  is  at  the  same  time 
our  Representative  with  God,  —  interceding  on  our 
behalf  from  within  our  hearts  and  souls,  even  as 
Christ  acts  as  our  Intercessor  at  the  right  hand  of 
God  in  heaven. 

The  term  ‘Paraclete,’  therefore,  sums  up  all  those 
activities  and  functions  which  the  Holy  Spirit 
fulfils  as  Christ’s  Representative  in  and  to  His 
Church,  and  through  His  Church  to  the  world; 
and  at  the  same  time  all  those  activities  which  He 
carries  on  as  our  Representative  with  God.  As 


THE  LIFE  OF  THE  RISEN  CHRIST 


43 


Paraclete  the  Holy  Ghost  fulfills  the  functions  of 
Advocate,  Teacher  and  Admonisher  as  well  as 
4  Comforter  ’  or  Strengthened  —  for  all  these  gra¬ 
cious  activities  are  summed  up  in  that  pregnant 
title. 

But  there  is  another  sense  in  which  the  term 
4  Holy  Spirit  ’  (Holy  Ghost)  is  employed  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  a  sense  which  we  may  not 
overlook  if  we  are  to  realize  the  full  wealth  of 
meaning  which  the  Name  4 Holy  Spirit’  contains 
for  us.  In  the  New  Testament  ‘Spirit’  or  ‘Holy 
Spirit’  not  infrequently  seems  to  indicate  an 
‘essence’  or  an  essential  influence  rather  than  a 
‘person.’  The  Spirit  is  indeed  a  Person;  but  His 
personality  is,  so  to  speak,  ever  emerging  from  its 
impersonal  background.  When  our  Lord  first  makes 
mention  to  His  disciples  of  the  promised  Paraclete, 
the  pronouns  used  are  in  the  neuter  gender  (6, 
clvto,  Jno.  xiv.  17);  but  when  reference  is  made 
more  specifically  to  the  Comforter  as  such,  —  i.e. 
in  His  personal  aspect  and  work,  —  the  mascu¬ 
line  pronouns  (a  vros,  eKetvos)  are  employed 
(Jno.  xv.  26;  xvi.  7,  8,  13,  14).  Hoes  not  this 
indicate  that  ‘the  Spirit’  may  be  regarded  as  ‘per¬ 
sonal’  or  as  ‘impersonal’  according  to  the  point 
of  view?  And  is  not  this  true,  moreover,  not  only 
of  the  Spirit  of  God  but  also  of  the  spirit  of  man 
who  is  made  in  the  image  and  likeness  of  God? 
And  here  let  me  say  by  way  of  anticipation 
that  one  great  debt  which  we,  as  thinking  men, 


44 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


owe  to  the  Church  theology  of  the  Holy  Trinity  is 
the  distinction  there  drawn,  —  for  the  first  time 
(be  it  marked)  in  the  history  of  human  thought,  — 
between  ‘substance'  (or  ‘essence’)  and  ‘person.’ 
For  this  is  no  other  than  the  distinction  between 
the  ‘personal’  and  the  ‘impersonal’;  a  distinction 
of  such  fundamental  importance  for  psychology 
and  philosophy,  as  well  as  for  theology  and  religion. 

An  illustration  of  this  distinction  is  supplied  by 
the  field  of  musical  art.  In  the  music  of  the  or¬ 
chestra,  wherein  a  number  of  separate  instruments 
minister  to  the  total  effect,  there  is  the  expression 
of  the  impersonal  spirit  of  music;  while  the  voice 
of  the  singer,  conveying  as  it  does  a  message  to 
the  conscious  understanding,  is  music  in  its  personal 
aspect.  As  the  orchestra  gives  body  and  fulness 
to  the  total  musical  effect,  so  the  voice  of  the 
singer  makes  articulate  that  which  would  other¬ 
wise  be  simply  a  combination  of  harmonious  sounds. 
Even  so  ‘  personality  ’  is  that  which  makes  ‘  spirit  ’  ar¬ 
ticulate,  gives  to  it  definite  form  and  character; 
while  ‘spirit’  supplies  substance  and  content  to 
‘personality.’ 

Now  in  dealing  with  the  great  subject  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  both  His  personal  and  His  impersonal 
aspects  are  to  be  recognized.  Thus  far  we  have 
been  considering  the  Holy  Spirit  mainly  from  the 
personal  point  of  view,  —  in  His  Person  and  office 
as  Paraclete.  We  are  now  to  consider  the  same 
Holy  Spirit  as  the  Life  of  the  Risen  Christ,  imparted 


THE  LIFE  OF  THE  RISEN  CHRIST 


45 


to  His  Church,  —  to  those  who  are  in  union  with 
Him  as  living  members  in  His  one  Body.  From 
this  point  of  view  the  Holy  Ghost  is  regarded  as 
the  Principle  of  the  new  life  which  is  in  Christ, 
the  second  Adam,  and  is  communicated  to  us 
through  our  union  with  Him.  The  ‘ Spirit’  of 
Christ  is  equivalent  to  the  ‘Mind’  of  Christ 
(I  Cor.  ii.  16);  to  the  ‘Life’  of  Christ  (Rom.  v.  io). 
“In  one  Spirit  were  we  all  baptized  into  one  body, 
and  were  all  made  to  drink  of  one  Spirit”  (I  Cor. 
xii.  13).  That  is,  we  were  all  made  partakers  of 
the  one  life,  —  the  life  of  the  Risen  Christ.  The 
same  thought  is  ei^fessed  in  I  Cor.  vi.  17, —  “He 
that  is  joined  to  the  Lord  is  one  spirit;  ”  —  not 
one  ‘person’  but  one  essential  life.  And  here  the 
question  arises:  May  it  not  be  that  our  union  with 
Christ  reaches  beyond  the  plane  of  conscious,  per¬ 
sonal  life  even  into  that  region  which  lies  beneath 
the  threshold  of  consciousness?  —  in  other  words, 
that  what  is  called  the  ‘subliminal  self’  is  also 
the  sphere  of  operation  of  the  Divine  Spirit?  Must 
this  not  be  the  case,  if  indeed  this  subliminal 
self  is  a  reality?  for  surely  no  part  of  our  human 
nature  or  human  life  is  beyond  the  reach  of  the 
Spirit’s  influence. 

Let  us  remind  ourselves  of  what  happened  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost.  Pentecost  in  its  own  way 
marks  just  as  real  and  important  a  point  of  de¬ 
parture  in  the  spiritual  history  of  mankind  as  does 
either  the  day  of  our  Lord’s  Incarnation  (Christmas 

\ 


46 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


Day)  or  the  Easter  day  of  His  Resurrection.  For 
as  without  Easter  Day  the  promise  of  our  Lord’s 
nativity  would  not  have  been  fulfilled,  so  without 
Pentecost  the  promise  of  Christ’s  resurrection  to  a 
new  and  heavenly  life  would  so  far  as  we  are  con¬ 
cerned  have  failed  of  its  accomplishment.  That 
first  Pentecost  was  to  the  disciples  something  more 
than  a  mere  figurative  ‘birth’  or  ‘resurrection’; 
it  was  the  beginning  of  a  new  Divine  dispensation; 
it  marked  a  new  chapter  in  the  spiritual  life-history 
of  man.  Whitsunday,  as  has  been  so  often  said, 
,  is  the  natal  day  of  the  Christian  Church.  It  was 
a  birth  of  Christ,  not  in  the  stable  at  Bethlehem, 
but  in  the  hearts  and  minds  of  His  believing  fol¬ 
lowers;  it  was  the  fulfilment  of  His  own  gracious 
promise,  —  “I  will  not  leave  you  orphans;  I  will 
come  to  you.”  What,  then,  was  the  experience 
of  the  day  of  Pentecost?  The  disciples  who  shared 
in  the  Divine  ‘gift  of  tongues’  found  themselves 
suddenly  transported  beyond  the  limits  of  their 
ordinary,  conscious  life.  They  were,  so  to  speak, 
lifted  out  of  themselves.  “Filled  with  the  Holy 
Ghost,”  they  immediately  began  to  speak  with  other 
tongues  “as  the  Spirit  gave  them  utterance.”  It 
was  a  development  from  within,  as  well  as  an 
afflatus  from  without.  The  experience  seems  to 
have  been  analogous  to  that  of  prophetism,  wherein 
the  Divine  afflatus  or  ‘inspiration,’  coming  upon 
the  seer,  exalts  his  mental  and  spiritual  powers 
beyond  their  ordinary  capacity  in  vision,  trance 


THE  LIFE  OF  THE  RISEN  CHRIST 


47 


or  dream.  Some  of  those  who  stood  by  and  heard 
the  apostles  speaking  said,  “  These  men  are  full 
of  new  wine.”  But  it  was  the  4 new  wine’  of  the 
Spirit,  uplifting  and  enlarging  the  ordinary  human 
consciousness  so  as  to  develop  latent  powers  of 
thought  and  expression.  This,  then,  appears  to 
be  what  was  implied  in  the  ‘gift  of  tongues.’ 

This  brings  to  the  front  the  question,  What  is 
“inspiration”  in  its  relation  to  “revelation”? 
Inspiration  is  the  characteristic  activity  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  even  as  revelation  is  the  characteristic 
work  of  Christ.  Christ  is  the  Revealer,  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  the  Inspirer,  —  yes,  He  is  the  Inspiration 
itself.  Christ  is  the  Manifestation  of  God  in  the 
form  of  a  human  Personality  who  is  at  the  same 
time  Divine;  —  “the  Child’s  name  shall  be  called 
Emmanuel,  —  God  with  us.”  Now  as  our  Lord 
is  the  personal  Manifestation  of  the  presence, 
power  and  glory  of  the  Father,  so  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  the  vital  communication  of  that  same  Divine 
presence,  power  and  glory.  Christ  is  called  “the 
Word  of  God.”  It  is  the  ‘word,’  the  articulate 
utterance,  that  conveys  the  mind  of  him  who 
speaks,  and  impresses  it  upon  others.  But  it  is 
the  ‘spirit,’  —  the  warm,  vital  breath  which  ac¬ 
companies  and  bears  along  that  ‘word’  that  com¬ 
pletes  the  self-communication  of  one  personality 
to  another.  Accordingly,  while  it  is  the  Divine 
function  of  Christ  as  Word  (or  Logos)  to  reveal ,  it 
is  the  no  less  Divine  function  and  office  of  the  Spirit 


48 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


to  inspire.  As  the  Spirit  is  not  given  apart  from 
the  Word,  —  for  in  the  order  of  thought  the  Word 
must  ever  come  first,  —  so  the  Divine  office  and 
work  of  the  Word  (the  Revealer)  is  completed  and 
carried  on  to  its  consummation  by  the  cooperating 
and  accompanying  activity  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  We 
must  remember  that  while  clear-cut,  distinct 
consciousness  is  no  doubt  the  highest  form  of  that 
experience  which  we  call  ‘personal,’  yet  there  is 
at  the  same  time  a  philosophy  and  a  theology  of 
‘the  unconscious’  as  well.  We  know  how  much 
the  psychology  of  the  present  day  has  to  say  about 
the  ‘subliminal  self.’  If  this  ‘subliminal  self’ 
exists,  —  as,  indeed,  we  must  acknowledge  that  it 
does,  —  must  it  not  be  true  that  our  Maker  takes 
this  particular  region  of  our  nature  under  His 
care;  that  He  makes  special  provision  for  it  in 
the  plan  of  His  gracious  and  redemptive  dealings 
with  mankind?  And  do  we  not  find  evidence  of 
this  provision  for  our  need  in  the  fact  that  God  has 
come  to  us  not  only  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ 
His  Son,  but  that  He  has  also  come  to  us  in  the 
form  of  “a  rushing,  mighty  Wind”  and  of  Tongues 
of  Fire?  Not  only  does  He  speak  with  us  face  to 
face  in  the  person  of  His  Son,  but  in  and  by  the 
Holy  Ghost  God  enters  into  union  with  our  ele¬ 
mental  spiritual  nature.  It  is  not  now  as  Word, 
or  Voice  (which  divides  even  while  it  unites  those 
who  hold  converse  with  each  other)  but  it  is  as 
Breath,  or  Blast  or  Fire,  which  fuses  and  melts  and 


THE  LIFE  OF  THE  RISEN  CHRIST 


49 


blends  into  one  our  finite  spirits  with  the  great 
Father  of  spirits  Himself.  Is  it  not  true  that  in 
the  Holy  Ghost  God  chooses  to  act  and  operate 
in  an  indirect  and  impersonal  manner,  while  in  the 
Word,  or  Logos,  He  addresses  us  (as  He  did  Job  of 
old)  saying,  “Gird  up  thy  loins  like  a  man;  I  will 
demand  of  thee,  and  answer  thou  me.”  To  say 
this  is  not  by  any  means  to  deny  or  weaken  faith 
in  the  Divine  personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  but 
it  is  to  recognize  the  manifoldness  and  variety  of 
the  Divine  manifestations,  and  the  richness  of  that 
Divine  mercy  which  finds  its  way  to  us  by  every 
means  available  or  suited  to  our  many-sided  nature, 
made  as  we  are  in  the  image  and  likeness  of  God. 

We  have  referred  to  the  phenomena  of  prophetism 
as  finding  illustration  and  exemplification  in  the 
events  of  the  day  of  Pentecost.  We  may  also 
see  in  that  Divine  Baptism  the  evidence  for  the 
bestowal  of  ‘spiritual  grace ’  in  the  Sacraments  of 
the  Church.  For  sacramental  grace,  if  it  be  a 
reality,  does  unmistakably  imply  the  transcending 
of  the  limitations  of  our  strictly  conscious  experi¬ 
ence.  Dr.  Pusey  in  his  massive  Tract  on  Baptism 
calls  attention  to  the  unperceived  methods  by  whiclr 
God  is  graciously  pleased  to  act  upon  the  human 
soul;  and  it  must  certainly  be  admitted  that  if  a 
sacrament  be  something  more  than  a  bare  symbol, 
then  its  effect  will  transcend  the  bounds  of  strictly 
conscious  experience. 

Again,  and  in  an  entirely  different  direction,  — 


50 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


the  phenomena  of  religious  emotionalism  as  evi¬ 
denced  in  evangelistic  campaigns  and  “ revival” 
services  bear  a  direct  and  unmistakable  relation 
to  the  Pentecostal  Gift  of  the  Spirit;  we  see  in 
them  a  real  analogy  to  those  experiences  in  the 
early  Church  which  were  connected  with  the 
exercise  of  “ charismatic’7  gifts,  and  were  the  imme¬ 
diate  result  of  the  bestowment  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Speaking  generally,  the  presence  of  the  Ploly 
Ghost  is  witnessed  not  so  much  directly  as  through 
its  effects.  We  recall  those  words  spoken  to  Nico- 
demus  in  which  our  Lord  set  forth  once  for  all  the 
fundamental  character  of  the  life  spiritual :  — 
“The  wind  bloweth  where  it  listeth,  and  thou  hear- 
est  the  sound  thereof,  but  canst  not  tell  whence  it 
cometh  and  whither  it  goeth;  so  is  every  one  that 
is  born  of  the  Spirit”  (St.  John  iii.  8).  The  “law 
of  the  Spirit”  is  another  and  a  higher  law  than  the 
law  of  “nature.”  The  “world”  cannot  discern 
this  law,  since  it  is  the  law  of  that  Spirit  which  the 
world  as  such  “cannot  receive”  (Jno.  xiv.  17).  The 
view-point  of  the  ‘spiritual’  man  is  neither  grasped 
nor  comprehended  by  him  who  occupies  the  stand¬ 
point  of  the  purely  ‘natural’  world;  yet  the  realm 
of  ‘nature’  is  embraced,  even  while  it  is  trans¬ 
cended,  by  the  higher  realm  of  the  Spirit.  The 
‘spiritual’  includes  and  embraces  the  ‘natural,’ 
while  at  the  same  time  its  fulness  is  not  exhausted 
by  the  latter.  “All  things  are  yours,”  says  St. 
Paul,  —  “whether  the  world,  or  life  or  death,  or 


THE  LIFE  OF  THE  RISEN  CHRIST  51 

things  present,  or  things  to  come,  —  all  are  yours, 
and  ye  are  Christ’s,  and  Christ  is  God’s”  (I  Cor. 
iii.  21-23).  Our  Lord’s  words  to  Nicodemus  appear 
to  convey  the  truth  that  to  us,  in  so  far  as  we 
occupy  the  stand-point  of  this  present  life,  “the 
way  of  the  Spirit,”  like  the  path  of  the  wind,  is 
unknown;  but  that  we  are  assured  of  the  presence 
of  the  one,  as  of  the  other,  by  its  effects.  Indirectly 
(for  the  most  part)  the  Holy  Spirit  is  perceived,  as 
indirectly  for  the  most  part  He  is  worshipped; 
yet  this  recognition,  this  consciousness,  although 
indirect  is  none  the  less  real. 

It  is  true  that  in  the  New  Testament  we  do  find 
direct,  personal  manifestations  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
recorded;  as,  for  example,  when  the  Holy  Ghost 
said  to  the  prophets  and  teachers  at  Antioch, 
“Separate  me  Barnabas  and  Saul  for  the  work 
whereunto  I  have  called  them”  (Acts  xiii.  2);  but 
at  the  same  time  such  personal  manifestations  or 
communications  would  seem  to  have  been  com¬ 
paratively  infrequent,  —  like  an  intermittently- 
flashing  light.  It  is  an  outstanding  fact  in  the 
New  Testament  record  that  the  presence  of  the 
Spirit  is  a  ‘multiple’  as  well  as  a  ‘unitary’  presence; 
in  other  words,  it  is  social  as  well  as  individual. 
While  the  “rushing  mighty  wind”  is  one,  the 
“tongues  of  fire”  are  divided;  the  “one  and 
self-same  Spirit”  appears  as  seven  “lamps  of  fire” 
burning  before  the  throne  of  the  Eternal,  and  also 
as  the  “seven  eyes”  of  the  Lamb  “sent  forth  into  all 


5  2 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


the  earth”  (Rev.  iv.  5;  v.  6).  It  is  true  that  the 
presence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  with  our  Lord  in  and 
after  His  Baptism  was  in  unitary  and  individual 
form;  —  “the  Holy  Ghost  descended  in  bodily 
shape  like  a  dove  upon  him.”  But  the  presence 
of  the  same  Holy  Ghost  with  the  disciples  at 
Pentecost  was  in  social  form,  —  a  form  in  which 
all  could  equally  share,  —  in  the  dividing  and 
self-distributing  Tongues  of  flame.  God  indeed 
“fulfills  Himself  in  many  ways;”  He  communi¬ 
cates  Himself  to  men  not  only  by  His  personal 
Word,  but  also  by  His  essential  Spirit.  He  “com- 
passeth  us  behind”  as  well  as  “before,”  and  “lays 
his  hand  upon  us.”  Shining  upon  us  from  above 
in  the  Sun  of  righteousness,  at  the  same  time  He 
sustains  us  from  beneath  by  the  heavenly  support 
of  the  Spirit  of  His  grace. 

Apart  from  the  creative  power  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  there  is  no  such  thing  as  /jo/y-spiritual 
personality  on  the  part  of  man.  “He  that  is 
joined  to  the  Lord  is  one  spirit.”  The  spirit,  the 
life,  the  power  of  the  Risen  and  ascended  Jesus 
being  communicated  to  us  becomes  our  own  life. 
The  result  of  this  communication  is  that  we  are 
“in  Christ,”  —  made  essentially  and  vitally  one 
with  our  Head.  The  analogy  of  the  body  holds 
good  here.  In  the  living  body  each  and  every 
biological  cell  may  be  said  to  have  a  life  of  its 
own;  at  the  same  time  its  individual  life  ministers 
to  and  is  merged  in  the  general  life  of  the  organism. 


THE  LIFE  OF  THE  RISEN  CHRIST 


53 


Even  so,  in  the  sphere  of  the  life  spiritual,  each  and 
every  one  who  lives  “in  Chris t”  possesses  his  own 
individual  spirit;  while  at  the  same  time  each  one 
shares  in  the  spirit  of  the  Risen  Jesus,  being  made 
partaker  of  His  fulness.  Our  own  ‘spirit'  is  the 
immediate,  individual  life  possessed  by  each  one 
severally;  the  Holy  Ghost  is  the  universal  Life 
of  the  Body.  The  spirit,  the  life  of  the  Risen  and 
glorified  Christ  has  become  multipersonal;  the 
“Corn  of  wheat"  (Jno.  xii.  24)  has  multiplied  it¬ 
self  into  an  infinite  number  of  grains;  at  the  same 
time  this  Life  ever  finds  its  personal  centre,  —  its 
‘Ego  of  egos,’  — in  Christ  who  is  the  Head.  “Ye 
are  all  one  (man)  in  Christ  Jesus"  (tt avres  .  .  . 
vjdels  els  ears  kv  XpLcrrcp  ’ Irjaov ,  Gal.  iii.  28).  The 
Spirit  sinks  Himself  into  the  depths  of  our  souls 
that  His  presence  may  be  manifested  in  the  fruitage 
of  “all  holy  desires,  good  counsels  and  just  works." 
His  personality  seems  to  disappear  that  the  per¬ 
sonality  of  Christ  and  of  those  who  are  “in  Christ" 
may  alone  be  in  evidence.  Is  not  this  wondrous 
self-effacement  akin  to  our  Lord’s  marvellous  act 
of  condescending  love  when  He  became  incarnate, 
and  especially  when  for  our  sakes  He  suffered 
death,  —  apparent  extinction,  —  upon  the  cross? 
May  we  not  learn  from  these  Divine  ‘self-empty¬ 
ings’  that  our  private  personality  may  well  sink 
itself  and  disappear  out  of  sight  in  the  spirit  of 
loyalty  to  some  worthy  cause?  —  for  that  influence 
which  is  called  impersonal  may  sometimes  be  the 


54 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


most  effective  of  all.  It  is  certainly  rather  remark¬ 
able  that  after  our  Lord  had  spoken  to  His  dis¬ 
ciples  of  the  mission  and  office  of  the  Comforter 
(as  recorded  in  chapters  xiv.,  xv.  and  xvi.  of  St.  John’s 
Gospel)  in  that  great  high-priestly  prayer  which 
follows  in  chapter  xvii.  no  mention  should  be  made 
of  the  promised  Comforter,  but  only  of  the  Father, 
of  Christ  Himself  and  of  the  disciples.  —  “I  in 
them  and  thou  in  me,  that  they  may  be  made 
perfect  in  one,  and  that  the  world  may  know 
that  thou  hast  sent  me.”  Yet  we  know  that  the 
hidden  Principle  of  this  union  can  be  no  other 
than  the  Holy  <phost.  For  this  union  is  realized 
by  love;  and  it  is  precisely  the  Holy  Ghost  who  is 
this  Divine  Love.  It  is  just  this  Holy  Spirit  whom 
St.  Paul  in  the  thirteenth  chapter  of  I  Corinth¬ 
ians  is  describing  under  the  name  of  Love  or  Char¬ 
ity.  After  speaking  of  the  various  “ gifts”  and 
“charisms,” —  tongues,  prophecy,  knowledge;  after 
speaking  of  faith,  of  benevolence  and  even  of  sacri¬ 
fice,  —  the  Apostle  passes  on  to  the  climax  of  his 
argument  in  setting  before  the  Corinthian  Christians 
that  which  was  to  be  the  supreme  object  of  their 
desire  and  striving,  —  that,  apart  from  which  all 
so-called  “ spiritual  gifts”  were  but  empty  and  in 
vain,  —  the  matchless  Gift  of  Love. 

Returning  to  our  Lord’s  words  to  Flis  disciples; 
—  As  the  Father  and  the  Son  are  one  in  the  sphere 
of  eternal,  Divine  life,  even  so,  in  the  Spirit,  Christ 
and  His  disciples  are  one.  In  the  one  case  as  in 


THE  LIFE  OF  THE  RISEN  CHRIST 


55 


the  other  it  is  the  Spirit  which  is  the  underlying 
Bond  of  unity,  —  a  Bond  which  is  felt  rather  than 
directly  perceived.  And  after  all,  is  not  this  in 
line  with  the  fact  that  the  promised  Comforter 
should  not  speak  as  “from  himself,”  —  that  He 
should  not  glorify  Himself,  but  rather  should  “take 
of  the  things  of  Christ,”  and  should  glorify  Him? 
An  illustration  of  this  may  be  seen  in  the  case  of 
the  wife  who  labors  behind  the  scenes  that  her 
husband  may  achieve  success  and  honor  in  the 
sight  of  men.  Her  own  person  and  activity  mostly 
out  of  sight,  she  is  nevertheless  the  ‘  power  behind 
the  throne,’  and  to  her  her  husband’s  achievement 
and  reputation  are  largely  due.  So,  again,  the  per¬ 
sonality  of  the  mother  may  be  hidden  to  the  eyes 
of  the  world  behind  the  personality  of  her  grown-up 
sons;  while  none  the  less  she,  in  the  quiet  retire¬ 
ment  of  the  home,  is  the  bond  of  union,  strong  and 
tender,  which  holds  the  family  in  one. 

We  have  spoken  of  the  Holy  Spirit’s  relation  to 
ourselves,  both  conscious  and  unconscious;  let  us 
finally  consider  His  relation  through  us  to  the  lives 
of  others. 

“The  first  man,  Adam,  was  made  (or  rather, 
‘ became’)  a  living  soul;  the  last  Adam  became  a 
life-giving  spirit  (I  Cor.  xv.  45,  R.  V.).  Just  as 
every  natural  descendant  of  the  first  Adam  has 
become,  like  his  ancestor,  a  “living  soul,”  so  every 
one  who  has  received  new  life  from  the  Second 
Adam  has  become,  like  Him,  a  “quickening  spirit.” 


5^ 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY ‘ 


Not  only  is  the  life  of  the  “  second  Man,  from 
heaven”  the  immediate  source  of  our  quickening 
and  renewal,  but  through  us  this  same  life  is  com¬ 
municated  to  others;  and  that  not  alone  by  per¬ 
sonal  and  direct  contact,  but  just  as  surely  by 
impersonal  and  indirect  influence.  For  it  is  the  “law 
of  the  Spirit  of  the  life  (that  is)  in  Christ  Jesus” 
to  communicate  itself;  it  simply  cannot  help  doing 
so.  Let  us  not  worry  too  much  about  what  we 
call  our  ‘personal  limitations.’  The  words  of  Jesus 
to  the  woman  of  Samaria  were,  —  “Whosoever 
shall  drink  of  the  water  that  I  shall  give  him  shall 
never  thirst;  but  the  water  that  I  shall  give  him 
shall  become  in  him  a  well  of  water,  springing  up 
unto  everlasting  life.”  This  means  life  not  alone 
for  him  that  drinketh,  but  for  others  through  him. 
This  is  re-affirmed  in  our  Lord’s  great  utterance 
spoken  in  Jerusalem  at  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles; 
—  “He  that  belie veth  on  me  .  .  .  out  of  his  belly 
shall  flow  rivers  of  living  water.  And  this,”  —  as 
the  evangelist  goes  on  to  explain,  —  “this  he  spake 
of  the  Spirit  which  they  that  believed  on  him  were 
to  receive”  (Jno.  vii.  38,  39).  The  proof  that  we 
possess  the  Spirit-life  is  seen  in  the  fact  that  we 
are  enabled  to  communicate  it  to  others.  St.  Paul 
could  say  to  the  disciples  in  Corinth,  —  “In  Christ 
Jesus  I  have  begotten  you  through  the  Gospel.” 
The  Spirit  of  the  glorified  Jesus  is  the  atmosphere 
of  our  new  life,  — -  the  element  in  which  we  live  and 
move  and  exist.  Is  there  any  higher  blessedness 


THE  LIFE  OF  THE  RISEN  CHRIST 


57 


than  this,  —  of  communicating  to  others  the  life 
which  we  have  ourselves  received?  The  joy  of 
living  is  supremely  realized  in  the  joy  of  imparting 
to  others  the  life  which  is  in  ourselves.  And  this 
communication  of  spiritual  life,  like  the  life  itself, 
is  largely  unconscious.  In  this  unconsciousness 
and  spontaneity,  indeed,  lie  almost  its  chief  power 
and  charm.  Each  personality  must  find  its  own 
way  of  living  and  working;  must  form  its  own 
channels  of  self-communication.  It  cannot  be  forced 
into  agreement  with  some  extraneous  or  foreign 
model;  self-expression  to  be  normal  must  be  spon¬ 
taneous.  Some  personalities  naturally  express  them¬ 
selves  in  the  manner  of  open  and  direct  appeal, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  evangelist  and  the  ‘winner  of 
souls.’  To  others,  direct  speech  on  the  matter  of 
‘ personal  religion’  is  difficult,  if  not  almost  impos¬ 
sible.  Each  personality  will  create  its  own  medium, 
—  its  own  method  of  appeal  to  others.  It  will  act 
through  whatever  instrumentality  —  even  material 
and  physical — may  belong  to  it;  as  the  vitalizing 
power  of  Christ  was  conveyed  through  the  touch 
of  His  garment.  After  all,  man’s  part  is  simply  to 
provide  the  conditions  for  the  Divine  action;  man’s 
agency  at  its  highest  is  but  procreative,  not  creative; 
the  power  is  of  God  and  not  of  us.  Nevertheless  it 
is  a  fact  that  the  “means  of  grace”  —  the  preaching 
of  the  Word,  the  ministration  of  the  Sacraments, 
as  well  as  the  private  and  unofficial  means  of 
personal  example  and  influence  —  are  committed 


58  SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 

unto  men.  Very  significant  it  is  how  in  the  New 
Testament  the  Gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  associated 
with  the  warm,  personal  touch.  It  was  through  the 
laying  on  of  the  Apostles’  hands  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  was  given.  This  “ laying  on  of  hands”  was 
not  only  a  sacramental  rite;  it  was  the  symbolic 
declaration  of  the  fact  that  human  contact  is  the 
necessary  means  by  which  the  spiritual  life  is  to 
be  propagated;  by  which  the  spirit  of  the  glorified 
Jesus  is  imparted  to  the  sons  of  men.  The  Spirit 
does  not  become  ourselves ,  but  He  becomes  ours. 

In  the  possession  of  this  power  we  are  enabled  not 
only  ourselves  to  advance  but  also  to  lead  others 
towards  the  standard  of  perfect  manhood  in  Christ 
Jesus.  The  growth  of  the  individual  is  concurrent 
with  the  growth  of  the  Body.  The  growth  is  from  v 
Him  as  the  Head,  according  to  Him  as  the  Type 
and  Norm,  and  unto  Him  as  the  complete  reali¬ 
zation.  It  is  from  Him  that  “all  the  body,  fitly 
framed  and  knit  together  through  that  which  every 
joint  supplieth,  according  to  the  working  in  (due) 
measure  of  each  several  part,  maketh  the  increase 
of  the  body  unto  the  building  up  of  itself  in  love” 
(Eph.  iv.  1 6). 


iii.  st.  Paul’s  teaching  concerning 

‘  THE  SPIRIT  ’ 

There  has  been  a  good  deal  of  discussion  in  recent 
years  concerning  the  exact  meaning  of  the  New 
Testament  phrase  The  Spirit,’  especially  as  this 


ST.  PAUL’S  DOCTRINE  OF  <(THE  SPIRIT ” 


59 


I 


occurs  in  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul.  This  question 
seems  to  have  been  raised  originally  from  the  side 
of  German  Protestant  theology,  as  represented  by 
such  well-known  names  as  Professors  Deissmann1 
and  (the  late)  R.  Seeberg.2  Certain  writers  in 
England  have  also  been  advocating  the  view  that 
the  New  Testament  term  ‘Holy  Spirit’  or  ‘the 
Spirit’  is  to  be  interpreted  as  meaning  the  spiritual 
presence  of  Christ,  or  Christ  Himself  personally.3 
What  is  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  ‘the  Spirit’ 
as  employed  by  St.  Paul?  Is  it  identical  with 
‘the  Holy  Spirit’  on  the  one  hand,  or,  on  the  other, 
is  ‘Spirit’  simply  to  be  identified  with  the  Risen 
and  glorified  Christ?  The  former  would  seem  to 
have  been  the  prevalent,  indeed,  almost  the  uni¬ 
versal  opinion,  at  least  until  recent  years;  the 
y  latter,  however,  is  the  view  that  is  vigorously  ad¬ 
vocated  by  Professors  Seeberg  and  Deissmann. 

At  the  outset  it  will  be  helpful  to  compare  the 
Pauline  usage  of  the  term  ‘Spirit’  with  that  of 
‘the  Holy  Spirit’  or  ‘the  Holy  Ghost.’  This,  so 
far  as  I  am  aware,  has  not  been  done  by  either  of 
the  two  distinguished  theologians  to  whom  I  have 
referred.  And  yet  I  am  sure  that  there  is  a  real 

1  St.  Paul;  a  Study  in  Social  and  Religious  History,  p.  125  fol. 

2  See  article  entitled  “Fundamental  Characteristics  of  New 
Testament  Christology”  in  The  Constructive  Quarterly  for  March, 
1916. 

3  See  an  article  by  the  Rev.  George  J.  Jackson,  D.D.,  in  the 
Hibbert  Journal  for  July,  1922;  also  the  Report  of  the  Girton 
Conference  of  Modern  Churchmen,  of  1921. 


6o 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


and  a  very  important  distinction  to  be  noted  here. 
Let  us  go  back  to  the  original  meaning  of  the  Scrip¬ 
tural  term  ‘holy.’  The  idea  of  'holiness’  in  its 
original  meaning  (cp.  the  Hebrew  '  kodesh  ’)  was  the 
idea  of  separation.  God’s  ancient  people  Israel 
were  a  people  called  out  from  the  world  and  sep¬ 
arated  from  the  nations  about  them  to  be  a  peculiar 
people,  —  that  is,  a  people  for  God’s  own  possession. 
And  the  same  idea  is  involved  in  our  Christian 
calling.  "Ye  are  a  chosen  generation,”  says  St. 
Peter;  —  "a  royal  priesthood,  a  holy  nation,  a 
people  for  (God’s)  own  possession;  that  ye  may 
show  forth  the  excellencies  of  him  who  hath  called 
you  out  of  darkness  into  his  marvellous  light.” 
This  idea  of  'separation’  is  conveyed  in  the  name 
by  which  the  followers  of  Christ  are  known  in  the 
pages  of  the  New  Testament.  Christian  men  and 
women  are  the  "saints,”  —  the  "separated”  people. 
They  have  been  set  apart  by  the  act  of  God  Him¬ 
self  from  the  sinful  world,  —  from  the  dominion  of 
Satan  and  death;  —  called  out  from  darkness  into 
God’s  marvellous  light.  Their  name  of  "saints” 
—  that  is,  "holy  ones”  —  is  derived  from  the  name 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  Himself,  even  as  the  name  of 
"Christians”  is  derived  from  Christ.  "The  Holy 
Spirit”  is  the  distinctive  name  of  Him  who  is  the 
third  Person  in  the  Divine  Trinity,  as  "Father” 
and  "Son”  are  the  names  of  the  first  and  second 
Persons.  The  addition  of  the  word  "Holy”  is  the 
mark  of  separation  from  all  those  spirits  which 


ST.  PAUL'S  DOCTRINE  OF  •“ THE  SPIRIT ” 


61 


have  not  their  holiness  in  themselves,  but  whose 
holiness  depends  upon  their  union  with  God  and 
with  Christ. 

The  name  “Holy  Spirit,”  then,  is  the  name  of 
distinction  and  of  separation.  The  Divine  Spirit 
as  “the  Spirit  which  is  from  God”  —  to  livevixa 
to  etc  tov  0 eov  (I  Cor.  ii.  12),  —  is  distinguished  from 
“the  spirit  of  the  world”  (to  iwev/xa  tov  koct/jiov), — 
a  distinction  which  is  sometimes  overlooked  by 
so-called  ‘ liberal’  and  ‘Broad-Church’  writers.  He 
is  distinct  from  the  spirit  of  worldly  art  and  of 
worldly  philosophy.  He  is  the  distinctively  Christian 
Spirit,  —  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  whose  office  it  is  to 
bear  witness  to  Jesus  Christ,  —  to  interpret  Christ 
to  men.  His  name,  like  the  name  “saint”  which  is 
derived  from  Him,  is  a  hedge  or  line  of  demarca¬ 
tion  separating  “the  Church”  from  “the  world,” 
those  who  are  “in  Christ”  from  those  who  are 
“without”  (I  Cor.  v.  12,  13).  This,  then,  is  the 
specific  meaning  and  force  of  the  term  “Holy 
Spirit.” 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  for  those  who  are  “in 
Christ”  and  who  are  walking  “not  according  to 
the  flesh,  but  according  to  the  Spirit,”  there  is 
not  the  same  necessity  for  dwelling  upon  this  as¬ 
pect  of  separation  and  of  demarcation.  The  spirit 
of  God’s  renewed  and  redeemed  children  has  be¬ 
come  one  with  the  Spirit  of  Jesus  Christ.  It  is 
the  inclusiveness  rather  than  the  exclusiveness  of 
the  spiritual  life  which  is  here  in  question.  The 


62 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


simple  term  ‘ Spirit ’  or  ‘the  Spirit’  as  this  is  used 
in  the  writings  of  St.  Paul  (and,  we  may  add,  in 
the  Gospel  of  St.  John)  accordingly  embraces  within 
its  scope,  on  the  one  hand  the  (Holy)  Spirit  of 
God  and  on  the  other  the  spirits  of  those  who  are 
redeemed  and  renewed  in  Christ.  In  the  latter 
connection  ‘spirit’  may  indicate  either  the  spirit 
of  the  individual  Christian  believer 1  or  the  col¬ 
lective  spirit  of  a  Christian  group.2  The  distinc¬ 
tion  between  ‘Spirit’  as  uncreated  and  as  created 
may  be  indicated  by  the  use  of  the  capital  or  of 
the  small  letter  ‘s’  respectively.  The  capital  initial 
letter  is  appropriate  to  the  “Spirit  of  God”  or 
“of  Christ”;  the  small  ‘s’  may  indicate  the  spirit 
of  the  individual  Christian  or  of  the  group  of 
Christian  disciples.  But  inasmuch  as  ‘Spirit’  in 
its  inclusive  meaning  embraces  both  the  “Spirit 
of  God”  and  the  “spirit”  or  higher  nature  of  the 
individual  Christian  believer,  in  all  such  cases  (and 
there  are  many  of  them  in  St.  Paul’s  Epistles)  the 
large  initial  ‘  S  ’  must  be  understood  to  include 
the  small  ‘s.’  It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  the  Re¬ 
visers  of  the  New  Testament  have  made  several 
changes  in  the  capitalization  of  the  word  ‘Spirit’ 
as  this  occurs  in  the  King  James  Version.  It  is  not 
a  case  of  choosing  as  between  the  large  and  the 
small  letter  when  both  are  equally  appropriate,  and 
when  the  one  may  be  said  to  be  ‘latent’  in  the 
other. 

1  II.  Tim.  iv.  22.  2  Gal.  vi.  18;  Philem.  25. 


ST.  PAULS  DOCTRINE  OF  “  THE  SPIRIT ”  63 


Now  let  us  briefly  consider  in  the  first  place  the 
relation  of  “the  Spirit”  to  the  Risen  and  glorified 
Christ,  particularly  as  this  is  set  forth  in  the  writings 
of  St.  Paul,  and  then  let  us  review  St.  Paul’s 
teaching  concerning  “the  Spirit”  in  its  more  general 
bearings,  with  special  reference  to  the  moral  and 
ethical  content  of  this  teaching. 

In  the  first  place,  “the  Spirit”  in  the  sense  of 
the  “life”  or  the  “mind”  of  the  glorified  Christ, 
is  identified  with  Christ  Himself.  “The  Lord  is 
the  Spirit,”  as  St.  Paul  expressly  says.  But  it  is 
very  important  at  this  point  to  emphasize  the  dis¬ 
tinction  between  “the  Spirit”  as  ( a )  the  eternal 
Spirit  of  Jehovah  and  (b)  as  the  glorified  human 
spirit  of  the  Risen  Jesus.  It  is  just  here  that 
confusion  may  very  easily  arise  as  between  the 
Divine  and  the  human  elements  in  the  Risen  and 
glorified  Lord.  Professor  Seeberg  says,  for  example, 
that  “through  his  resurrection  the  Man  Jesus  is 
spiritualized  to  such  a  degree  that  in  some  way  he 
merges  with  the  Divine  energy  into  one  spirit.” 
By  “the  divine  energy”  in  this  connection  must  be 
meant  the  eternal  Spirit  of  God.  In  the  same  con¬ 
text  Seeberg  speaks  of  “the  same  personal  unity 
which  Jesus  and  the  Spirit  now  constitute  in 
heaven.”  Such  statements  as  these,  unless  care¬ 
fully  guarded,  might  lead  into  either  one  of  two 
distinct  errors;  —  (1)  the  confusion  of  two  spe¬ 
cifically  disparate  natures  in  Christ,  —  the  Divine 
and  the  human,  —  or  (2)  the  confusion  of  the  two 


64 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


distinct  personalities  of  the  Risen  Lord  and  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  As  to  the  first:  —  The  result  of  such 
a  blending  of  natures,  whereby  humanity  is  either 
transformed  into  Divinity  or  Divinity  into  human¬ 
ity,  is,  that  one  is  practically  shut  up  to  the  con¬ 
ception  of  Christ  as  either  merely  human  or  merely 
Divine;  in  other  words,  the  conception  of  the 
Incarnation  breaks  down,  resulting  in  a  pure 

Humanitarianism  on  the  one  hand,  or  a  Docetic 

% 

and  non-human  view  of  our  Lord’s  Person  on  the 
other. 

As  to  the  second  danger  of  which  I  have  spoken, 

—  the  danger  of  confusing  the  two  distinct  per¬ 
sonalities  of  the  Risen  Lord  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 

—  it  is  to  be  observed  that  while  St.  Paul  does 
indeed  say  that  “the  Lord  is  the  Spirit”1  we 
find  him  saying  neither  that  “the  Spirit  is  the 
Lord,”  nor  that  “the  Lord  (Jesus)  is  the  Holy 
Spirit.”  It  is  never  to  be  forgotten  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  a  distinct  Personality  by  Himself.  While 
the  conception  of  1  Spirit’  is  indeed  a  mediating 
conception,  nevertheless,  under  cover  of  this  con¬ 
cept  we  are  by  no  means  justified  in  breaking  down 
such  a  fundamental  distinction  as  that  which  exists 
between  the  4 human’  and  the  ‘Divine’  on  the  one 
hand,  or,*  on  the  other,  between  the  persons  of 
Father,  Son  and  Holy  Spirit  in  the  eternal 
Trinity.  Such  a  procedure  (to  say  nothing  of  its 
essential  profaneness)  would  in  fact  preclude  all 

1  H.  Cor.  in.  17. 


ST.  PAUL'S  DOCTRINE  OF  “  THE  SPIRIT ”  65 


possibility  of  any  real  theological  science.  It  is 
the  never-to-be-forgotten  task  of  the  Christian 
theologian,  while  “  comparing  spiritual  things  with 
spiritual,”  at  the  same  time  to  “prove  the  things 
that  differ.” 

Again,  when  Professor  Seeberg  asserts  that  “the 
Johannine  ‘Logos’  is  nothing  else  than  the  Pauline 
‘Pneuma,’  ”  1  one  must  also  enter  a  caveat.  In  the 
person  of  the  Risen  Lord  the  human  spirit  of  Jesus 
is  (personally)  united  with  the  “Spirit  of  holiness,” 
—  the  eternal  Spirit  of  God.  But  at  the  same  time 
it  would  be  a  serious  error  to  conceive  of  the  human 
spirit  of  Jesus  as  eternal  a  parte  ante ,  —  i.e.  as  pre¬ 
existent,  or  to  identify  that  human  spirit  with  the 
Divine  Logos.2  This  would  appear  to  be  a  new 
form  of  that  old  Eutychian  heresy  according  to 
which  the  human  element  in  Jesus  Christ  practi¬ 
cally  disappears  in  the  Divine,  even  as  a  drop  of 
vinegar  in  the  infinite  ocean.  To  revert  to  such 
teaching  means  not  theological  progress,  but  ret¬ 
rogression.  The  distinction  between  the  Divine 
and  the  human  must  always  be  preserved;  apart 
from  this  distinction  no  real  Christology  is 
possible. 

And  now  let  us  look  at  the  broad  outlines  of  the 
Pauline  teaching  as  to  ‘the  Spirit’  in  the  sense  of 

1  See  art.  referred  to  above,  p.  121. 

2  For  the  distinction  between  the  office  and  function  of  the 
Divine  Logos  (Word)  and  that  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  see  above, 
pp.  47,  48. 


66 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


‘  the  spiritual  life’  communicated  to  us  from  God 
“in  Christ.”  From  ‘the  Spirit’  as  in  relation  to 
Christ,  let  us  now  turn  to  ‘the  Spirit’  as  in  relation 
to  ourselves. 

The  principal  passages  in  St.  Paul’s  Epistles  for 
the  study  of  his  doctrine  of  ‘the  Spirit’  are  four;  — 
Romans  viii.  1-27;  I.  Cor.  ii.  9-16;  II.  Cor.  iii. 
and  Galatians  iii.— vi.  It  is  noteworthy  that  in  not 
one  of  these  important  passages  does  the  name 
‘Holy  Spirit’  occur.1  And  in  this  connection  it  is 
a  rather  remarkable  fact  that  not  once  in  the  entire 
Epistle  to  the  Galatians  do  we  find  mention  of 
the  name  uHoly  Spirit,”  —  i.e.  with  the  adjective 
‘Holy’  prefixed  to  the  word  ‘Spirit,’  —  or  even  of 
the  adjective  ‘holy’  by  itself  or  of  the  term  ‘saint.’ 
(The  same  thing  is  true,  by  the  way,  of  the  Epistle 
of  St.  James.2)  It  is  in  these  passages,  therefore, 
that  St.  Paul’s  inclusive  use  of  the  term  ‘Spirit’ 
can  be  studied  to  the  best  advantage.  What, 
then,  are  some  of  the  characteristic  marks  of 
‘spirit’  or  of  the  spiritual  life  as  here  set  forth? 

In  the  first  place,  as  ‘spirit’  is  contrasted  with 
‘soul’  (‘psyche’),  so  the  ‘spiritual’  (‘ pneumatical ’) 
man  is  contrasted  with  the  ‘natural’  (‘psychical’) 
man.  This  contrast  is  drawn  out  especially  in  the 
passage  I.  Cor.  ii.  9-16,  but  the  whole  chapter  il- 

1  The  word  ‘holy’  in  I.  Cor.  ii.  13  (A.  V.),  rests  on  no  sufficient 
MSS.  evidence,  and  is  omitted  (without  comment)  in  the  Revised 
Version. 

2  The  name  ‘Holy  Spirit’  (‘Holy  Ghost’)  does  not  occur  in  the 
Book  of  Revelation. 


ST.  PAUL'S  DOCTRINE  OF  “ THE  SPIRIT ”  67 


lustratesit.  "The  natural  man  (6  ipvx^Kos  avOpaiTOs) 
receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  for 
they  are  foolishness  unto  him;  and  he  cannot  know 
them,  because  they  are  spiritually  judged.  But 
he  that  is  spiritual  judgeth  all  things,  but  he  him¬ 
self  is  judged  of  no  man  (Vss.  14,  15).  The  realm 
of  the  'psychical’  and  the  realm  of  the  'spiritual’ 
constitute  two  distinct  spheres  of  being.  He  who 
dwells  in  the  lower  sphere  cannot  comprehend  the 
things  of  the  higher  sphere;  on  the  other  hand,  he 
who  is  living  and  moving  in  the  higher  sphere  is 
able  perfectly  to  understand  and  judge  the  things 
of  the  lower.  Herein  is  revealed  the  primacy  of 
the  spiritual  life  and  of  the  spiritual  understanding; 
yet  it  is  not  a  primacy  in  the  eyes  of  the  world, 
or  from  the  earthly  point  of  view,  for  the  very 
reason  that  the  realm  of  the  spirit  is  incompre¬ 
hensible  to  the  merely  'natural’  man.  "For  who 
hath  known  the  mind  of  the  Lord,  that  he  should 
instruct  him?  But  we,”  continues  St.  Paul  in  a 
statement  that  is  wonderfully  bold  and  lofty  in 
its  sweep,  —  "we  have  the  mind  of  Christ.”  We 
should  place  beside  this  that  other  equally  bold  and 
far-reaching  affirmation  of  St.  Paul,  —  "All  things 
are  yours.”  That  is  to  say,  —  the  whole  realm  of 
the  world  and  of  human  life  is  the  rightful  domain 
of  the  Spirit,  and  therefore  of  those  who  are  'in  the 
Spirit.’  Therefore,  whether  it  be  "the  world,  or 
life,  or  death,  or  things  present,  or  things  to  come, 
—  all  are  yours,  and  ye  are  Christ’s,  and  Christ 


68 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


is  God’s.” 1  The  world  is  potentially  Christ’s 
kingdom,  and  it  is  to  be  reclaimed  for  Him  in  the 
power  of  the  Spirit.  The  Spirit  is  the  inspiration 
of  all  true  poetry,  art  and  thought.  He  is  the 
Spirit  of  political  order  and  of  social  justice.  He  is 
the  Inspirer  of  all  that  is  worthily  and  unselfishly 
thought  or  uttered  or  accomplished.  The  life  of 
the  Spirit  is  not  exclusive  but  inclusive  of  all  true 
and  pure  and  right  and  holy  living. 

And  now,  more  specifically  as  to  the  ethical 
content  and  bearing  of  The  Spirit’  or  The  spiritual 
life.’  This  is  set  at  once  in  a  clear  light  by  the 
illuminating  contrast  between  (a)  ‘spirit’  and  Taw’ 
(or,  otherwise  stated,  between  ‘spirit’  and  ‘letter’) 
and  (b)  by  that  most  familiar  antithesis  between 
‘the  spirit’  and  ‘the  flesh.’  The  “law  of  the  Spirit” 
is  contrasted  with  the  “law  of  sin  and  of  death” 
in  that  great  passage,  Romans  viii.  i  fob,  and,  in 
the  same  connection,  ‘spirit’  and  ‘flesh’  are  set 
in  vivid  and  striking  contrast.  And  the  whole 
scope  and  purpose  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians 
is  to  exhibit  the  same  essential  and  fundamental 
contrast:  —  “I  say,  then,  Walk  by  the  Spirit,  and 
ye  shall  not  fulfil  the  lust  of  the  flesh.  ...  If  ye  are 
led  by  the  Spirit,  ye  are  not  under  the  law.” 2 
Freedom  and  life,  realized  through  the  righteousness 
of  Christ,  —  these  are  the  characteristics  of  the  life 
spiritual,  as  bondage  and  death  (through  sin)  are 
associated  with  ‘the  law’  and  ‘the  flesh.’  —  “If 

1 1.  Cor.  iii.  21-23.  2  Gal.  v.  16,  18. 


ST.  PAUL'S  DOCTRINE  OF  “ THE  SPIRIT ”  69 


Christ  be  in  you,  the  body  is  dead  because  of  sin, 
but  the  spirit  is  life  because  of  righteousness.” 1 
We  are  dealing  here  not  with  metaphysical  abstrac¬ 
tions  but  with  the  deepest  moral  and  ethical 
realities.2 

Again,  in  II.  Cor.  iii.  the  antithesis  between  ‘the 
spirit’  and  ‘the  letter’  is  set  forth  in  the  most  ab¬ 
solute  terms:  —  “The  letter  killeth,  but  the  spirit 
giveth  life.”  One  is  reminded  of  statements  in 
Romans  vii.  —  “Sin,  taking  occasion  by  the  com¬ 
mandment,  deceived  me,  and  by  it  slew  me” 
(vs.  n)  .  .  .  “but  now  we  have  been  discharged 
from  the  law,  having  died  to  that  wherein  we  were 
holden;  so  that  we  serve  in  newness  of  spirit  and 
not  in  oldness  of  (the)  letter”  (vs.  6). 

“By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them.”  —  The 
contrast  between  ‘spirit’  and  ‘flesh’  is  set  in  the 
clearest  light  when  we  compare  the  ‘works  of  the 
flesh’  on  the  one  hand  with  the  ‘fruit  of  the  spirit’ 
on  the  other.  These  two  terms  are  significant. 
‘Fruit’  implies  the  presence  of  life;  mere  ‘works’ 
on  the  other  hand  (which,  even  though  they  may 
be  wrought  in  outward  compliance  with  the  letter 
of  the  law,  are  yet  purely  mechanical)  are  destitute 
of  that  vitality  which  the  inspiration  of  the  Spirit 
alone  can  bestow.  “If  there  had  been  a  law  given 
which  could  make  alive,  verily  righteousness  would 

1  Rom.  viii.  10. 

2  For  the  application  of  this  to  the  theology  of  Justification, 
see  below,  Chapter  V. 


70 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


have  been  out  of  the  law.”  1  When  we  look  at  the 
‘works  of  the  flesh’  as  these  are  enumerated  by- 
St.  Paul  in  Galatians  v.  19-21,  we  see  that  on  the 
face  of  them  they  are  divisive  and  destructive; 
the  fruits  of  the  Spirit  are  eminently  positive  and 
constructive.  Such  are  “love,  joy,  peace,  longsuffer- 
ing,  kindness,  goodness,  faith,  meekness,  temperance 
(or  self-control),  —  against  such  there  is  no  law.” 
The  freedom  of  the  Spirit  is  not  the  license  of  sin, 
but  the  liberty  of  love,  and  it  fulfils  itself  in  the 
loving  service  of  our  brethren.  Service  ‘in  the 
Spirit’  as  contrasted  with  the  servitude  of  the  law, 
is  ‘perfect  freedom.’  “The  law  of  the  Spirit  of  life 
in  Christ  Jesus  hath  made  me  free  from  the  law 
of  sin  and  of  death.”  This  great  utterance  is  the 
Magna  Charta  of  Christian  liberty.  The  Spirit 
of  God  emancipates  because  He  is  the  Royal,  the 
‘Sovereign’  Spirit,  even  as  He  is  the  Life-creating 
One.  (The  expression  to  K vpiov  in  the  Nicene  Creed 
is  immediately  followed  by  to  Zcoottolov.)  The 
effect  of  His  presence  within  us  is  necessarily 
vitalizing  and  uplifting,  as  it  is  emancipating.  The 
Psalmist  (Psal.  li.  12,  cp.  R.  V.)  prays  that  God  would 
“uphold”  him  with  a  “free”  (i.e.  a  noble  and  a 
willing)  “  spirit.”  It  is  worth  while  to  compare 
the  expressions  in  the  Septuagint  and  Vulgate 
versions  with  the  Hebrew  original  in  this  passage. 
In  the  LXX.  the  passage  reads  tt vevnaTi  rjyeiiovLKco 
<TTr)pi{6v  jue;  the  Vulgate  has  “spiritu  principali 


1  Gal.  iii.  21. 


ST.  PAUL'S  DOCTRINE  OF  “ THE  SPIRIT" 


71 


confirma  me.”  The  spirit  of  the  Christian  is  and 
ought  to  be  a  princely  and  a  noble  spirit,  because 
it  is  the  spirit  of  the  sons  of  God,  in  and  through 
Him  who  is  the  eternal  Son,  Christ  Jesus. 

Before  leaving  this  part  of  our  subject,  the 
question  occurs;  —  Does  St.  Paul  employ  the  phrase 
“in  the  Spirit”  as  an  equivalent  to  that  great  char¬ 
acteristic  phrase  of  his,  “in  the  Lord”?  1  We  shall, 
I  think,  be  prepared  to  answer  this  question  in  the 
affirmative  if  we  bear  in  mind  the  inclusive  sense 
of  the  term  ‘Spirit’  as  used  by  the  Apostle.  The 
phrase  “in  the  Spirit”  includes,  as  we  have  seen, 
the  human  spirit  of  the  individual  believer.  St. 
Paul  is  “in  the  Spirit”  in  so  far  as  he  is  actuated 
by  that  higher  nature  which  is  no  other  than  the 
life  of  Christ  within  him.  This  is  what  has  been 
called  the  “mysticism”  of  St.  Paul.  “It  is  no 
longer  I  that  live,  but  Christ  liveth  in  me.” 2 
To  be  living  ‘in  the  Spirit,’  then,  is  to  be  living 
‘in  Christ.’  But  in  this  “mysticism”  of  the  Apostle 
there  is  no  mistiness  or  confusion.  “The  Lord” 
(or  “Christ”)  is  always  a  Personality  distinct  from 
the  individual  Paul.  The  Divine  Spirit  is  distinct 
not  only  from  the  personal  spirit  of  Paul,  but  also 
from  the  collective  spirit  of  any  particular  group 

1  Deissmann  has  pointed  out  (“St.  Paul,”  pp.  126,  128)  that 
the  formula  “in  the  Spirit”  occurs  only  19  times  in  St.  Paul’s 
writings.  On  the  other  hand,  the  formula  “in  Christ”  (or  “in  the 
Lord,”  etc.)  occurs  164  times  in  St.  Paul;  it  is  really  the  charac¬ 
teristic  expression  of  his  Christianity.” 

2  Gal.  ii.  20. 


72 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


of  Christian  disciples.  And  even  when  we  rise  to 
the  universality  of  the  whole  “Body,”  —  the 
Church,  —  He  is  the  Spirit  within  rather  than  the 
Spirit  of  the  Body.  Or,  He  is  the  Spirit  of  the 
Body  only  in  so  far  as  the  Body  includes,  or  rather 
is  individualized  and  constituted  by  its  Head, 
Christ  Jesus.  Accordingly,  “  there  is  one  body  and 
one  Spirit,”  even  as  there  is  “one  Lord”  (Jesus 
Christ)  and  “one  God  and  Father  of  all.”1  These 
great  unities  interpenetrate  as  they  involve  each 
other.  There  is  no  confusion,  but  a  Divine  and 
wonderful  harmony,  in  which  each  several  note  or 
phrase  has  its  distinct  and  individual  value. 

On  the  whole,  it  appears  that  the  phrase  or 
formula  “in  the  Lord”  (“in  Christ,”  “in  Christ 
Jesus”)  brings  into  the  foreground  our  relation  to 
the  Risen  and  ascended  Jesus;  its  emphasis  is 
upon  the  objective,  while  the  emphasis  of  the  com¬ 
plementary  phrase  “in  the  Spirit”  is  upon  the 
subjective  side  of  Christian  experience.  Professor 
Anderson  Scott  has  well  expressed  it  by  saying 
that  while  Christ  is  the  ‘sphere,7  the  Spirit  is  the 
‘atmosphere72  of  the  new  life. 

As  we  review  St.  Paul’s  teaching  concerning  ‘the 
Spirit,7  we  find  that  in  its  main  scope  and  effect  it 
is  distinctly  practical.  The  doctrine,  —  rather,  the 
supreme  fact  and  reality  of  ‘the  Spirit7  and  of  its 
communication  to  us,  —  is  the  charter  and  guar- 

1  Eph.  iv.  4-6. 

2  “The  Spirit,”  edit,  by  B.  H.  Streeter,  p.  145  (Macmillan). 


ST.  PAUL’S  DOCTRINE  OF  i(THE  SPIRIT ”  73 


antee  of  all  true  Christian  liberty.  Liberty  —  free¬ 
dom  in  the  highest  sense  —  exists  only  within  the 
realm  of  the  spirit;  all  other  so-called  ‘liberty’  is 
unreal  and  valueless.  It  is  this  glorious  liberty  unto 
which  “ye,  brethren,  were  called,”  as  says  St. 
Paul  to  the  Galatians.  “Stand  fast,  therefore,  in 
the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  hath  set  us  free,  and 
be  not  entangled  again  in  the  yoke  of  bondage!”  — 
such  is  his  ringing  appeal  to  those  whom  he  saw  in 
peril  of  slipping  back  into  the  servitude  of  the  Law. 
It  is  this  liberty  which  we  are  to  hold  fast,  and  in 
which  we  are  to  rejoice  “in  Christ.”  Yet  it  is 
never  to  be  forgotten  that  the  legitimate  outcome 
and  issue  of  this  Christian  freedom  is  that  we  use 
it  “not  for  an  occasion  to  the  flesh,”  but  that 
“ through  love  we  be  servants  one  to  another.”1 
The  freedom  of  the  Christian  man,  as  Luther,  that 
great  expositor  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  long 
ago  pointed  out,2  is  realized  only  in  loving  and 
devoted  service,  —  service  first  to  God,  and  then 
to  our  fellow-men,  and  “especially  to  them  that  are 
of  the  household  of  the  faith.” 

1  Gal.  v.  13  R.V. 

2  In  his  treatise,  “Die  Freiheit  eines  Christenmenschen.” 


CHAPTER  III 

The  Divine  Trinity  and  Personality 

i 

Is  there  any  question  in  the  whole  history  of 
spiritual  thought  which  offers  a  higher  challenge  to 
the  human  intelligence  than  the  question  of  the 
plurality  of  ‘persons’  in  the  Being  of  God?  Con¬ 
cerning  the  great  fact  of  the  Holy  Trinity  there  is 
not,  nor  has  there  ever  been  for  Christians,  the 
slightest  doubt  or  question.  The  existence  of  three 
Persons  in  the  unity  of  the  Godhead  is  now,  as  it 
has  ever  been,  an  integral  part  of  the  common 
Christian  faith.  But  the  problem  still  remains  as 
to  how  this  great  and  fundamental  fact  shall  be 
presented  in  clear  and  consistent  intellectual  form. 
To  the  doctrine  as  propounded  by  orthodox  theo¬ 
logians  objections  have  been  urged  and  baffling 
questions  suggested;  —  questions  and  objections  to 
which,  it  must  be  frankly  admitted,  Trinitarian 
thinkers  have  often  been  unable  to  give  an  intel¬ 
ligible  answer.  For  example:  —  If  the  Son  as  well 
as  the  Father  be  God,  does  not  this  necessarily 
mean  that  in  the  act  of  ‘eternal  generation’  God 
begets  Himself,  —  in  other  words,  brings  Himself 
into  existence  from  a  state  of  non-existence? 


74 


THE  DIVINE  TRINITY 


75 


And  if  this  be  so,  then  how  can  God  be  recognized 
as  the  Self-existent  One?  Or  are  we  asked  to  be¬ 
lieve  that  there  are  two  absolute  and  self-existent 
Beings,  one  of  whom,  nevertheless,  owes  His  exist¬ 
ence  to  the  other?  And  if  not  this,  then  what 
does  ‘ orthodoxy’  mean?  It  was  Dr.  Emmons, 
was  it  not,  who  characterized  the  doctrine  of 
‘eternal  generation ’  as  ‘eternal  nonsense.’ 

Again;  —  Does  not  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
as  stated  by  orthodox  theologians  practically  come 
to  this:  —  that  there  are  three  infinite  personal 
Beings,  —  the  Father,  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost? 
But  how  is  this  to  be  reconciled  with  that  primary 
truth  of  Revelation  that  there  are  not  three  Gods, 
but  one  only  God? 

These  and  such-like  considerations  have  been 
vigorously  urged  by  Unitarian  critics  against  the 
rationality  of  the  historic  Trinitarian  doctrine.  In 
reply,  the  proponents  of  orthodoxy  have  been 
obliged  to  fall  back  upon  the  plea  that  the  Trinity 
is  after  all  an  inscrutable  mystery;  not  contradic¬ 
tory  to  reason,  although  transcending  our  thought- 
categories  and  all  human  powers  of  understanding. 

Under  these  circumstances  it  becomes  necessary 
that  we  scrutinize  afresh  those  historic  statements 
of  the  Christian  faith  which  we  have  in  the  Catholic 
Creeds.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  does  the  Nicene 
Creed,  for  example,  teach  directly  or  by  implication 
the  existence  of  two  (or  three)  absolute  and  self- 
existent  Beings,  the  second  (and  third)  of  which 


76 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


are  brought  into  existence  by  the  act  (or  as  a 
necessary  outcome  of  the  existence)  of  the  first? 
If  so,  then  the  Nioene  Creed  does  make  an  impos¬ 
sible  demand  upon  our  intelligence,  inasmuch  as 
it  embodies  what  Harnack  calls  a  “  complete  con¬ 
tradiction. n  But  I  believe  it  can  be  shown  that 
this  venerable  standard  of  the  Christian  faith 
does,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  teach  nothing  of  the 
kind.  Again,  is  it  true  that  the  so-called  ‘Athana- 
sian’  Creed,  by  its  teaching  that  each  one  of  the 
three  Divine  ‘Persons’  is  God,  in  reality  asserts  the 
existence,  side  by  side,  of  three  absolute  and  self- 
existent  Divine  Beings,  —  in  other  words,  of  three 
Jehovahs?  From  such  a  statement  the  Christian 
consciousness  has  always  shrunk  as  profane  and 
indeed  blasphemous.  It  is  just  here  that  we  shall 
be  enabled,  by  applying  the  analytic  of  ‘personality,’ 
to  discriminate  between  two  distinct  theological 
TpoiroL  or  lines  of  Trinitarian  exposition,  and  thus 
ultimately  reach  a  far  richer  and  fuller  result  than 
would  otherwise  be  possible;  —  a  result,  moreover, 
which  shall  be  at  once  truly  constructive  and  con¬ 
firmatory  of  Christian  faith.  I  believe  it  can  be 
shown  that  the  Nicene  Creed,  fairly  interpreted, 
neither  contradicts  itself  nor  runs  counter  to  that 
great  Trinitarian  standard  of  Western  Catholicity, 
—  the  ‘Athanasian’  Creed. 

It  will  be  acknowledged  on  all  hands  that  if  the 
Trinity  be  indeed  an  objective  reality,  it  must  be 
in  perfect  harmony  with,  —  nay,  must  itself  be  the 


TEE  DIVINE  TRINITY 


77 


embodiment  of  the  fundamental  laws  of  spiritual 
existence.  The  order  and  harmony  which  the  uni¬ 
verse  evidences  must  be  the  reflection  of  the  original 
harmony  and  order  which  exist  within  that  eternal 
Being  who  is  creation’s  Author  and  Source.  This 
being  granted,  it  must  nevertheless  in  all  candor  be 
acknowledged  that  however  perfectly  the  objective 
fact  of  the  Divine  Trinity  may  (as  indeed  it  does) 
harmonize  with  reason  and  truth,  at  the  same  time 
our  theological  interpretations  of  that  fact  have 
not  attained  an  equal  degree  of  harmony  and  con¬ 
sistency;  indeed,  have  not  always  been  free  from 
irrationality  and  self-contradiction.  Is  there  no 
way  of  eliminating  these  contradictions  and  of  re¬ 
ducing  the  confusion  to  something  like  a  clear 
and  ordered  scheme?  For  it  is  obvious  that  any 
degree  of  irrationality  or  inconsistency  in  our  the¬ 
ological  teaching  cannot  but  prove  a  serious  if  not 
a  fatal  stumbling-block  in  the  pathway  of  those 
whom  we  would  win  to  the  Christian  faith,  as  well 
as  a  sore  burden  and  trial  to  those  who  indeed  be¬ 
lieve,  but  whose  intelligence  may  seem  to  be 
affronted  by  certain  demands  which  are  made  upon 
it.  It  becomes  therefore  an  imperative  task  to  the 
Christian  thinker  at  least  to  attempt  a  solution  for 
these  radical  difficulties  which  have  confused  and 
encumbered  the  subject  of  the  Trinity  of  Persons 
in  the  Being  of  God. 


78 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


II 

If,  then,  it  be  asked,  In  which  direction  are  we 
to  look  for  the  solution  of  these  difficulties?  the 
answer  seems  obvious :  —  Where  else  than  in  the 
primary  and  fundamental  facts  of  Personality  and 
of  Spirit?  It  is  in  this  direction  that  men  are 
seeking  to-day  for  the  key  to  our  theological  prob¬ 
lems  as  well  as  our  philosophical  difficulties.  If 
we  are  to  attempt  in  any  adequate  fashion  to  deal 
with  the  problems  presented  by  such  great  and 
outstanding  facts  of  Revelation  as  the  Trinity, 
the  Incarnation  and  the  Atonement,  it  is  necessary 
that  we  go  back  and  deal  first  of  all  with  the 
antecedent  problem,  What  is  £  personality 9  ? 

Let  us  then  address  ourselves  first  of  all  to  this 
problem  of  personality.  Just  what  do  we  mean  by 
a  'person/  whether  Divine  or  human?  For  surely 
this  term  cannot  be  understood  as  meaning  one 
thing  in  theology  and  quite  a  different  thing  in  our 
human  consciousness  and  experience.  If  our 
theology  is  to  be  vital,  there  must  be  some  cor¬ 
respondence  between  the  dicta  of  theology  and  the 
facts  of  human  life. 

If,  then,  it  be  asked,  Just  what  do  we  mean  by 
'personality/  whether  in  the  sphere  of  Godhead  or  in 
the  sphere  of  human  life,  will  not  our  answer  be  this; 
—  Personality  in  its  inmost  meaning  is  that  some¬ 
thing  by  virtue  of  which  I  can  say  "I”;  —  by  which, 
that  is,  I  can  and  do  realize  myself  as  an  “ego.” 


THE  DIVINE  TRINITY 


79 


But  at  this  point  we  are  confronted  by  the  dis¬ 
tinction  which  meets  us  at  the  threshold  of  Trini¬ 
tarian  discussion,  —  a  distinction  which  has  seemed 
so  arbitrary  and  meaningless  to  the  non-theologi- 
cally-minded,  —  that,  namely,  between  ‘person’ 
and  ‘substance’  in  the  Godhead.  The  deep  and 
far-reaching  implications  of  this  distinction,  first 
drawn  by  Tertullian,  have  not  always  been  realized. 
By  Tertullian’s  definition  ‘substance’  and  ‘person’ 
are  set  over  against  each  other  as  antithetical  and 
yet  as  mutually  interdependent.  As  we  should  say 
in  modern  philosophical  parlance,  ‘substance’  and 
‘person’  are  “momenta”  or  elements  in  the  unity 
of  the  conscious  life.  Our  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
must  secure  the  ‘personality’  of  God  no  less  than 
His  ‘substantiality.’  It  is  in  our  analytic  of  con¬ 
sciousness  and  of  its  processes  that  ‘substance’  is 
thus  set  over  against  ‘person.’  This  distinction 
which  at  first  sight  may  seem  so  uncalled-for  is 
nevertheless  based  upon  a  familiar  fact  of  con¬ 
sciousness,  —  the  fact,  that  is,  that  in  our  conscious 
processes  the  ‘self’  is  distinguished  from  the 
‘ground’  and  content  of  consciousness.  The 
‘ground’  of  consciousness  (called  in  this  connection 
the  ‘substance’)  includes  all  that  material  out  of 
which  consciousness  is  realized;  —  the  thoughts,  the 
feelings,  the  impressions,  the  volitions  which  succeed 
each  other  in  the  ever-changing  stream  of  our  con¬ 
scious  life.  Over  against  these,  the  ‘self’  is  as  it 
were  the  connecting  thread  which  binds  all  into  one. 


8o 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


‘Personality’  in  its  restricted  meaning  (that  in 
which  it  is  set  over  against  ‘substance’)  denotes 
that  hidden,  mysterious  and  elusive  somewhat 
through  which  self-consciousness  is  realized;  through 
which  the  spirit,  whether  in  God  or  in  man,  says 
“I  am.”  Without  this  ‘personality’  self-conscious¬ 
ness,  whether  human  or  Divine,  would  be  an 
impossibility.  On  the  other  hand,  ‘substance,’  taken 
by  itself,  as  over  against  this  ‘personality,’  means 
the  ‘ground’  of  consciousness,  —  that  out  of  which 
self-consciousness  exists  and  is  realized.  We  are 
here  dealing  with  the  “subject-object”;  in  the 
mirror  of  consciousness  the  “I”  is  reflected  as  the 
“me.”  These  are  not  two  ‘persons’  or  two  ‘sub¬ 
stances’  but  one  and  the  same  integral  personal 
being  or  ‘spirit.’  And  it  is  by  this  process  of  self¬ 
reflection  that  the  inner  wealth  of  personal  life  is 
appropriated  and  made  our  own.  It  is  thus  that 
one  perceives  not  only  that  “I  am  I,”  but  one 
realizes  all  that  it  means  to  be  a  person,  and  this 
particular  person  which  “I”  am.  In  man  this 
consciousness  is  but  limited  and  imperfect;  in  God 
it  exists  in  infinite  fulness  and  eternal  perfection. 
May  I  be  allowed  to  express  the  antithesis  just 
indicated  in  Pauline  language  as  the  antithesis 
between  the  ov  and  the  8l  ov  of  consciousness. 
The  ‘substance,’  as  has  been  said,  is  that  ‘out  of’ 
which  consciousness  exists  and  is  realized;  the 
‘person’  or  inmost  ‘self’  is  that  ‘through’  or  ‘by’ 
which  this  same  consciousness  becomes  an  actuality. 


THE  DIVINE  TRINITY 


81 


This  distinction  is  by  no  means  an  arbitrary  or  an 
unreal  one;  it  is  grounded  in  the  every-day  facts 

of  our  conscious  experience.  It  is  no  theological 

, 

fiction,  but  is  the  expression  of  that  which  actually 
exists  and  can  readily  be  recognized  by  a  simple 
effort  of  introspection.  It  is  because  selfhood  is 
realized  by  virtue  of  this  elemental  ‘  personality  ’ 
(which  we  have  called  the  8l  ov  of  consciousness) 
that  this  latter  is  termed  the  ‘self,’  —  the  ‘I,’  the 
avros.  This  ‘person’  is  real;  it  has  actuality,  even 
though  it  be  not  a  ‘substance’  in  the  stricter  meta¬ 
physical  sense  of  the  latter  term.  It  is  an  essential 
element  or  ‘moment’  in  that  concrete  and  integral 
reality  which  we  call  personal  spirit.  Its  elusive 
and  mysterious  character  is  evidenced  by  the  very 
fact  that  the  word  ‘spirit’  is  employed  now  in  a 
‘personal’  and  again  in  an  ‘impersonal’  sense. 
Nevertheless,  apart  from  this  ‘personality’  spirit 
would  not  be  ‘spirit’  in  the  real  meaning  of  the 
word,  for  spirit  must  be  capable  of  self-reflection; 
must  be  able  to  say  “I.”  But  when  we  turn  from 
introspection  to  the  objective  field  of  our  social 
life  and  of  our  relations  with  our  fellow-men,  we 
are  dealing  with  personality  (in  ourselves  and  in 
others)  in  the  concrete,  empirical  sense.  From  this, 
—  which  is  the  familiar,  every-day  point  of  view,  — 
the  “I”  means,  all  that  I  include  and  am;  the  total 
reality  of  myself,  including  all  of  my  powers,  func¬ 
tions  and  faculties;  the  living,  active  ‘ego.’ 

The  key  to  this  whole  problem  of  personality, 


82 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


whether  in  God,  in  Christ  or  in  ourselves,  lies,  as 
I  am  persuaded,  in  the  clear  and  definite  recogni¬ 
tion  of  these  two  ‘momenta/  —  ‘person’  and  ‘sub¬ 
stance/  —  which  I  have  differentiated  as  respec¬ 
tively  the  hi  ov  and  the  ov  of  consciousness.  And 
these  are  the  factors  with  which  we  have  to  deal 
when  we  endeavor  to  interpret  the  Divine  fact  of 
the  Holy  Trinity  along  that  line  of  exposition  upon 
which  Tertullian  and  Augustine  were  the  pioneers, 
and  which  we  may  term  the  ‘Western’  as  over 
against  the  Greek  Nicene  (or  Cappadocian)  inter¬ 
pretation  of  the  Trinity. 


hi 

At  this  point  it  will  be  a  relief  to  turn  from 
introspective  analysis  to  the  world  of  objective  il¬ 
lustration.  Is  it  possible  to  visualize  this  subtle 
and  elusive  thing  we  call  consciousness?  There  is 
one  perfect  illustration,  and  this  is  supplied  to  us 
in  the  pages  of  Revelation.  God,  in  whose  image 
and  likeness  man  is  made,  has  revealed  Himself  as 
the  supreme  and  original  Personality.  Upon  this 
revelation  was  founded  the  monotheism  of  ancient 
Israel,  —  the  priceless  and  inalienable  inheritance 
of  all  spiritual  religion  in  the  world  to-day.  For 
all  time,  God  has  revealed  Himself  to  us,  and  us 
to  ourselves,  by  the  image  of  the  Burning  Bush. 
“The  angel  of  Jehovah  appeared  to  Moses  in  a 
flame  of  fire  out  of  the  midst  of  a  bush;  and  he 
looked,  and  behold,  the  bush  burned  with  fire, 


THE  DIVINE  TRINITY 


83 


and  the  bush  was  not  consumed.”  1  Not  only  is 
this  the  perfect  figure  of  eternity,  —  of  a  perennial 
life  triumphing  over  all  the  forces  of  destruction 
and  dissolution ;  —  it  is  at  the  same  time  the 
highest  symbol  of  consciousness.  And  that  it  is 
meant  so  to  be  understood  in  this  connection  is 
evident  from  the  words  which  immediately  follow, 
in  which  God  declares  Himself  to  Moses  by  His 
supreme  and  epoch-making  Name:  —  “And  God 
said  unto  Moses,  I  AM  THAT  I  AM;  and  he  said, 
Thus  shalt  thou  say  unto  the  sons  of  Israel,  I  AM 
hath  sent  me  unto  you.”  2  The  application  of  the 
symbol  of  the  burning  bush  to  the  facts  of  con¬ 
sciousness  is  direct  and  immediate.  Fire  or  flame 
is  the  age-long  expression  of  Spirit.  In  the  ‘  burn¬ 
ing  ’  or  ‘combustion’  as  witnessed  by  Moses  two 
elements  are  to  be  distinguished,  —  the  bush  itself 
and  the  flame  which  it  sustained.  When  we  analyze 
the  process  of  combustion,  we  find  that  its  ‘ground,’ 
its  ‘substance’  (so  to  speak) — its  ‘out  of  which’ 
(to  ov)  was  the  bush  itself.  The  means  or  in¬ 
strumentality  of  the  burning  (its  5l  ov)  was  the  flame. 
To  the  process  of  combustion  both  of  these  elements 
are  necessary.  It  is  even  so,  in  that  process  or 
function  which  we  call  consciousness,  that  we  are 
to  distinguish  between  the  ‘ substance’  and  the 
‘person.’  For  if  it  is  true  that  I  realize  myself, 
that  I  exercise  self-consciousness,  I  can  only  do  this 
‘out  of’  the  material  furnished  by  my  ‘substance’ 

1  Exod.  iii.  2.  2  Ibid.,  verse  14. 


84 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


or  ‘nature/  —  spiritual,  psychical  or  physical, — 
and  ‘through’  or  by  means  of  my  personal  ‘self’ 
or  ‘ ego’  which  reacts  upon  that  material  and 
claims  it  as  its  own.  Psychology,  as  such,  may  not 
need  or  care  to  make  this  distinction;  but  it  is  a 
distinction  necessary  for  Christian  theology,  for 
without  this  key  it  is  impossible  to  interpret  the 
great  and  complex  problems  of  the  Trinity,  of  the 
Incarnation  and  of  the  Spirit.  For  the  interpreta¬ 
tion  of  these  facts,  not  impersonal  ‘nature’  but 
consciousness  itself  must  be  our  point  of  depart¬ 
ure.  - 

If  now  the  question  be  asked,  What,  more  ex¬ 
plicitly,  is  meant  by  the  ‘ground’  of  consciousness, 
as  distinguished  from  the  ‘instrument’  of  its  reali¬ 
zation?  the  answer  is;  —  This  ‘ground’  or  ‘sub¬ 
stance’  includes  whatever  is  not  the  ‘person.’  It 
is  the  ‘nature,’  including  (in  the  case  of  man) 
the  physical  organization,  —  the  body  itself.  The 
several  powers  and  faculties  of  the  soul  or  spirit, 
such  as  those  of  knowing,  of  feeling  and  of  volition, 
are  included  here,  for  all  these  are  the  spiritual 
‘substance’  or  ‘stuff’  of  consciousness;  the  elements 
out  of  which  our  consciousness  is  realized.  But  it 
is  the  ‘ego,’  the  ‘self,’  the  a vtos,  in  the  restricted 
sense  of  these  terms,  by  which  self-realization 
actually  takes  place.  Of  this  ‘ego’  one  can  predi¬ 
cate  little  more  than  that  it  is;  what  it  is  is  hardly 
capable  of  being  explained.  It  is  an  ultimate  fact 
or  postulate  which  simply  has  to  be  accepted.  We 


THE  DIVINE  TRINITY 


85 


know  that  it  exists  just  because  self-consciousness  is 
a  fact,  and  without  the  ‘ego’  self-consciousness 
would  be  impossible;  spirit  without  ‘personality’ 
would  not  be  self-conscious  spirit. 

Various  symbols  have  from  time  to  time  been 
employed  to  set  forth  this  mysterious  yet  obvious 
fact  of  self-consciousness;  symbols  less  adequate 
than  that  of  the  ‘burning  bush,’  yet  which  have 
their  distinct  value  in  bringing  to  light  certain 
aspects  or  elements  of  the  central  and  fundamental 
fact.  For  example,  —  it  is  obvious  that  conscious¬ 
ness  means  reflection,  —  self-reflection.  Thus  is  at 
once  suggested  the  symbol  of  the  mirror  which  gives 
back  an  image  of  the  original  object.  But  that 
which  makes  the  mirror  inadequate  as  an  illustration 
of  the  full  reality  and  meaning  of  consciousness  is 
that  it  exemplifies  merely  the  operation  of  a  law  of 
physics.  Real  life  and  movement,  —  the  reciprocity 
of  vital  process  (all  which  are  suggested  by  the 
lambent,  quivering  flame) — are  absent;  the  mere 
process  of  ‘reflection’  as  such  is  mechanical  and 
lifeless.  Nevertheless,  up  to  a  certain  point,  and 
within  its  limitations,  this  illustration  of  the  mirror 
and  its  reflected  image  has  value.  An  illustration 
drawn  from  another  quarter  is  that  of  the  circle 
with  its  two  elements  of  centre  and  circumference. 
The  circle  has  been  taken  as  a  symbol  of  self- 
conscious  personality,  and  it  is  so  employed  by 
Dante  in  his  exposition  of  the  mystery  of  the  Holy 
Trinity. 


86 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


“Within  the  deep  and  luminous  subsistence 

Of  the  High  Light  appeared  to  me  three  circles , 

Of  threefold  colour  and  of  one  dimension; 

And  by  the  second  seemed  the  first  reflected 
As  Iris  is  by  Iris;  and  the  third 
Seemed  fire ,  that  equally  from  both  is  breathed .” 1 

It  will  be  noted  that  the  poet  has  here  combined 
the  illustrations  of  reflected  light,  of  the  flame  and 
of  the  circle  in  his  symbolic  representation  of  the 
mystery  of  the  Trinity.  In  the  case  of  the  circle, 
the  centre  may  symbolize  the  ‘self’  or  ultimate  ego, 
while  the  circumference  represents  the  varied 
‘ content’  of  consciousness,  —  the  several  psychic 
functions  or  states,  such  as  emotion,  will,  under¬ 
standing,  memory.  And  yet  the  circle  still  less 
than  the  mirror  can  supply  an  adequate  symbolism 
of  the  fact  of  consciousness.  For  here  we  are  not 
even  in  the  region  of  physical  law  or  process  (as  in 
the  case  of  the  reflection  of  the  rays  of  light  in  the 
mirrored  image)  but  merely  in  the  region  of  abstract « 
geometrical  forms  and  concepts.  None  the  less 
these  symbols  and  such  as  these  may  be  employed 
for  what  they  are  worth.  They  are  helpful  up  to  a 
certain  point;  but  the  symbol  of  combustion  carries 
us  further  in  the  direction  of  vital  power  and  proc¬ 
ess,  and  it  is  this  symbol,  moreover,  which  may 
claim  Divine  sanction  and  authority.  But  it  must 
be  remembered  that  the  Burning  Bush  is  the  sym- 

1  Paradiso,  XXXIII.  1 15-120  (Longfellow’s  translation). 


THE  DIVINE  TRINITY 


87 


bol  of  consciousness  as  the  point  of  departure  for 
our  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Trinity;  it  is  by  no  means 
to  be  taken  as  an  adequate  illustration  of  the  Fact 
of  the  Trinity  itself.  For  the  Holy  Trinity  is  itself 
a  Divine  and  supernatural  reality,  finding  no  direct 
analogy  in  the  conscious  life  or  experience  of  man. 

IV 

Having  thus  developed  the  distinction  between 
‘person’  and  ‘substance’  as  respectively  the  dc  ov 
and  the  ov  of  consciousness,  we  may  now  proceed 
to  apply  this  key  to  the  interpretation  of  the 
Divine  fact  of  the  Trinity.  Be  it  remembered  that 
it  is  a  trinity  of  Persons  with  which  we  have  to 
deal,  —  a  trinity  of  ‘persons’  in  a  unity  of  ‘sub¬ 
stance.’  We  have  identified  our  two  factors, — 

‘person’  and  ‘substance,’  —  as  the  bi  ov  and  the 

ov  of  consciousness.  At  this  point,  it  must  be 
freely  admitted,  we  have  recourse  to  mathematical 
method,  for  not  otherwise  can  our  problem  be 
solved.  It  is  only  in  so  far  as  the  human  mind  is 

able  to  count  and  number  that  the  problem  of  the 

Trinity  has  any  intelligible  meaning  for  us.  So 
far  from  being  either  irrelevant  or  irreverent,  the 
employment  of  ‘mathematical’  method  in  this 
connection  is  necessary.  Mathematical  law,  as 
such,  is  as  Divine  as  is  any  other  law.  Was  it 
not  Plato  who  said  that  mathematics  is  the  stepping- 
stone  by  which  we  advance  from  the  world  of  sense- 


88 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


impressions  to  the  world  of  philosophic  conception 
and  of  ultimate  truth?  And  Professor  Keyser  of 
Columbia  University  has  recently  been  showing 
us  afresh  the  profound  bearing  which  mathematical 
science  has  upon  all  philosophic  thought.  Accord¬ 
ingly,  in  mathematical  parlance,  let  us  multiply 
our  first  factor  (which  may  be  indicated  by  ‘p’) 
by  three ,  while  the  second  factor  (the  ‘substance’) 
remains  as  a  unit.  By  this  operation  we  are  at 
once  carried  beyond  the  field  of  human,  finite  ex¬ 
perience;  for  we  find  in  all  the  realm  of  created 
being  no  instance  of  such  tripersonality.  At  the 
same  time  we  are  thus  enabled  to  give  an  inter¬ 
pretation  of  the  Divine  and  supernatural  fact  which 
shall  speak  to  the  mind  and  the  intelligence.  It 
is  by  employing  this  ‘mathematical’  process  (mul¬ 
tiplying  one  of  our  factors  by  three ,  while  the  other 
factor  remains  in  its  unity)  that  we  pass  beyond 
the  limits  of  sense-experience  and  even  of  imagi¬ 
nation  into  the  realm  of  pure  reason;  for  reason 
operates  within  a  sphere  into  which  imagination 
cannot  always  follow  it.  And  this  statement  holds 
precisely  as  true  in  astronomy  and  in  other  physical 
sciences  as  it  does  in  theology.  We  must,  however, 
not  forget  that  in  dealing  with  the  great  problem 
of  the  Trinity  we  are  not  dealing  with  any  material 
quantities.  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  only 
misunderstood  if  it  is  thought  to  mean  that  “three 
equals  one.”  For  the  units  on  either  side  of  this 
equation  are  incommensurate;  they  are  units  of 


THE  DIVINE  TRINITY 


89 


two  different  orders.  It  is  not  that  three  Absolute 
Beings  are  the  same  as  or  equivalent  to  one  Abso¬ 
lute  Being.  Nor  is  it,  again,  that  three  Divine 
Persons  are  one  and  the  same  Divine  Person.  But  < 
it  is  that  three  Divine  ‘Persons’  eternally  co-exist 
in  the  unity  of  the  same  Divine  ‘being’  or  ‘sub-  - 
stance.’  It  has  been  said  in  defense  of  the  orthodox 
doctrine  that  while  the  Holy  Trinity  is  a  fact  above 
reason,  yet  it  is  not  contrary  to  reason.  Is  it  not 
a  truer  statement  to  say  that  the  fact  of  the  Trinity 
is  beyond  the  power  of  imagination  to  represent  it 
rather  than  that  it  is  beyond  the  power  of  reason 
to  form  a  conception  of  it?  For  what,  after  all, 
is  our  theology  of  the  Holy  Trinity  if  it  is  not  an 
attempt  to  form  an  intellectual  conception  of  this 
great  mystery  of  the  Christian  faith?  Let  us  not 
forget  that,  in  the  words  of  St.  Paul,  a  ‘mystery’ 
is  not  something  that  is  unintelligible  to  the 
spiritual  understanding,  even  though  it  be  hidden 
from  the  carnal  ‘mind  of  the  flesh.’ 1  We  have 
frankly  to  acknowledge  and  we  have  ever  to  keep 
in  mind  that  this  fact  of  the  Divine  Trinity  is 
absolutely  and  utterly  unique  (although  it  is  not 
for  this  reason  unintelligible) ;  for  as  has  been 
said  there  is  nothing  at  all  corresponding  to  it 
within  the  realm  of  creaturely  existence  or  of  human 
experience.  It  is  true  that  we  find  what  may  be 
called  ‘trinities’  in  nature,  or  again  in  the  human 
soul;  but  on  examination  we  find  that  either  these 


1  I.  Cor.  ii.  6-1 1. 


90 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


are  not  trinities  at  all  (in  the  stricter  sense)  but 
only  triads  or  groups  of  three,  or  else  they  are  but 
different  functions  of  one  and  the  same  unitary 
consciousness.  There  is,  for  example,  the  psycho¬ 
logical  ‘triad’  of  “memory,  understanding,  will,” 
or  that  again,  of  “power,  wisdom,  love.”  We 
recognize  at  once  that  these  are  but  cases  of  one 
and  the  same  individual  consciousness  functioning 
in  several  different  ways.  The  fact  that  I  am  the 
possessor  of  memory,  of  understanding  and  of  will, 
or  again  the  fact  that  I  may  discover  within  my¬ 
self  a  certain  measure  of  power,  of  wisdom  and  of 
love,  is  certainly  no  evidence  that  I  am  three  per¬ 
sons  in  one.  In  fact,  this  diversity  of  psychological 
faculties  or  functions  only  serves  to  emphasize  the 
unity  of  that  personality  in  which  they  manifest 
themselves.  No,  this  Unitarian  key  can  never 
unlock  the  ultimate  Trinitarian  problem. 

It  remains,  then,  that  the  consciousness  of  GOD 
as  the  Absolute  One  is  triune;  —  not  absolutely 
single,  nor  yet  absolutely  plural.  It  is  single  in 
so  far  as  the  ground  of  the  Divine  consciousness  is 
one  and  the  same;  it  is  plural  in  so  far  as  there 
are  three  instruments  of  its  self-realization.  And 
this,  I  submit,  is  the  true  interpretation  of  the 
historic  phrase  “three  Persons  in  one  substance.” 

v 

But  it  must  not  be  thought  that  what  has  just 
been  said  is  offered  as  by  any  means  a  full  interpre- 


THE  DIVINE  TRINITY 


91 


tation  either  of  the  mystery  of  the  Holy  Trinity  or 
of  the  historic  Trinitarian  doctrine  of  the  Church. 
It  has  its  immediate  application  to  the  mystery  of 
the  Holy  Trinity  as  this  is  contemplated  from  what 
may  be  called  the  distinctively  Augustinian  or 
‘Western’  point  of  view.  But  there  is  another  line 
of  interpretation,  equally  valid  with  the  above,  — 
not  contradictory  to  or  inconsistent  with  it,  but 
its  necessary  complement  and  counterpart,  —  and 
which  must  be  combined  with  the  foregoing  if 
our  exposition  of  the  Trinity  is  to  be  in  any  wise 
complete.  For,  dropping  our  ‘analytic  of  con¬ 
sciousness,’  let  us  assume  the  self-conscious  personal 
being  as  an  integral  unit.  This  brings  us  back  at 
once  to  the  plane  of  Greek  theology  and  of  our 
daily  experience.  (The  two  are  not  by  any  means 
so  far  apart  as  is  often  assumed.)  Now  from  this 
point  of  view  we  shall  have  to  deal  with  ‘personali¬ 
ties’  (the  Personalities  of  the  Father,  of  the  Son 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost)  in  the  sense  of  concrete 
personal  beings  or  ‘hypostases.’ 

We  begin,  then,  with  the  Supreme  Person  of  God 
the  Father.  For  Jehovah,  the  Absolute  Being,  be¬ 
comes  ‘Father’  by  the  act  of  generation,  through 
which  He  gives  existence  to  an  eternal  Son.  In 
this  act  of  realizing  Himself  as  Father,  God  as  the 
Absolute  Being  restricts  or  limits  Himself.  From 
this  point  of  view  the  Godhead  is  (so  to  speak) 
something  more  than  a  Supreme  (even  if  triune) 
Being;  the  Godhead  becomes  a  Divine  Society  or 


92 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


Family,  in  which  the  several  Members  (or  Persons) 
sustain  to  each  other  mutual  and  moral  relations. 
(We  have  here  to  do  with  the  realm  of  Divine 
nature  rather  than  with  the  region  of  ultimate 
Godhead.)  The  realization  of  this  Divine  Family 
may  be  said  to  be  the  first  step  toward  the 
creation;  in  this  Triad  of  Divine  Persons  (Persons, 
that  is,  in  the  full,  concrete  sense  of  that  term) 
lies  the  basis  for  all  moral  and  social  relations  in 
the  universe.  GOD  is  the  Father  from  whom  all 
fatherhood,  whether  in  heaven  or  on  earth,  is 
named  (Eph.  iii.  15). 

The  illustrations  of  light  from  the  sun  and  of 
the  stream  from  the  fountain  express  the  relation  of 
the  eternal  Word  or  Son  to  GOD  the  Father.  The 
Son  is  the  Image  and  Likeness  of  the  Father;  He  is 
the  xaPaKTVP  of  the  Father’s  virocrraaLs  or  personal 
being.1  The  Son  is  the  Father’s  ‘Word’  and  ‘Wis¬ 
dom,’  —  a  part,  as  it  were,  of  the  essential  nature 
and  being  of  God,  yet  having  at  the  same  time  a 
real  objective  existence  of  His  own,  and  sustaining 
a  personal  relation  to  the  Father.  These  illustra¬ 
tions,  supported  by  numerous  Scriptural  references, 
are  employed  by  Athanasius  to  sustain  and  enforce 
his  great  argument  against  the  Arians,  who  im¬ 
piously  sought  to  limit  the  eternal  Son  of  God 
within  the  categories  of  creaturehood  and  finite 
being. 

But  not  only  did  Athanasius  draw  his  illustra- 

1  Hebr.  i.  3. 


THE  DIVINE  TRINITY 


93 


tions  from  the  field  of  external  nature  by  the 
figures  of  the  ray  from  the  sun  and  the  stream  from 
the  fountain;  in  his  endeavor  to  find  an  intellectual 
expression  for  the  relation  of  the  Son  of  God  to 
His  Father  he  turned  to  the  familiar  categories  of 
Greek  logic.  As  Divine  ‘Word’  and  ‘Wisdom’  the 
Son  is  the  Father’s  Ibiov  or  idiOTrjs.  Not  (as  the 
Arians  impiously  maintained)  is  He  alien  or  foreign 
to  the  Father’s  essence;  on  the  contrary,  He  is 
the  Father’s  own  ‘proprium’  or  ‘essential  property,’ 
without  which  the  Father  would  not  be  what  He 
is.  Or  can  we  conceive  of  God  as  without  ‘Word’ 
and  without  ‘Wisdom’?  The  thought  is  not  only 
absurd  but  impious!  Athanasius’  great  effort 
throughout  his  Orations  against  the  Arians  is  to 
unfold  all  the  implications  of  the  concept  of  the 
Divine  and  eternal  Son.  And  this,  moreover,  is 
the  purport  of  the  distinctive  theological  phrases 
of  the  Nicene  Creed.  The  Son  is  said  to  be  “be¬ 
gotten  of  His  Father  before  all  worlds.”  He  is 
“God  from  (or  ‘out  of’)  God,  Light  from  Light, 
very  God  from  very  God.”  He  is  “begotten,  not 
made,”  and  “of  one  substance  with  the  Father.” 
“By  Him  were  all  things  made.”  In  short,  the 
Nicene  Creed  is  the  creed  of  the  Divine  and  eternal 
Sonship  of  Christ.  But  in  this  Creed,  as  in  the 
writings  of  Athanasius,  no  distinction  is  drawn 
between  ‘person’  and  ‘substance.’  The  Divine 
Hypostases  are  indeed  Persons,  but  it  is  in  the 
concrete  rather  than  in  the  analytical  or  ‘abstract’ 


94 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


sense  of  personality,  which  latter,  as  we  shall  see, 
is  characteristic  of  that  Western  formula  which 
is  unhistorically  and  rather  unfortunately  termed 
“the  Creed  of  St.  Athanasius.”  Let  it  be  said  at 
once  of  the  Nicene  (and  Athanasian)  concept  of 
Divine  Sonship  that  it  does  not  involve  the  existence 
of  two  (or  more)  personal  Beings,  each  of  whom  is 
that  supreme  and  absolute  One  known  as  Jehovah. 
There  is  but  one  supreme  Being,  —  one  eternal 
Source  and  Fountain  of  Godhead,  —  He  who  is 
indicated  in  the  opening  words  of  the  Creed  as 
“GOD  the  Father  Almighty.”  In  His  eternal  and 
underived  Being  is  the  affirmation  and  seal  of  the 
Divine  unity.1 

VI 

But  now  we  have  to  return  once  more  to  the  fact 
of  consciousness  itself,  and  to  its  implications  as 
these  are  seen  to  bear  upon  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity.  It  is  to  the  Western  theology  which  had 
its  provenance  from  the  school  of  St.  Augustine; 
it  is  in  the  writings  of  the  schoolmen  of  the  Latin 
Church  and  of  those  modern  theologians,  whether 
Catholic  or  Protestant,  who  have  succeeded  them 
that  we  are  to  look  for  the  development  of  Trini¬ 
tarian  doctrine  along  these  lines.  We  have  now  to 
consider  briefly  several  of  the  historic  efforts  which 

1  uQaT€p  8e  pia  apxVt  Kal  Kara  tovto  els  6eos.  "0 vtcos  rj  rip  8vtl 
Kal  &\rjdu)s  Kal  8vtoos  ovaa  otiaia  Kal  viroaraens  pLa  ecrriv,  f]  \eyovaa, 
’E7C0  elpc  6  &v}  nal  o{>  8vo ,  Lva  pi)  880  &pxo-i,  .  .  .  Orat.  IV,  contr. 
Ar.  1. 


THE  DIVINE  TRINITY 


95 


have  been  made,  through  the  analysis  of  conscious¬ 
ness,  to  interpret  the  fact  of  the  Holy  Trinity.  St. 
Augustine  himself  may  be  said  to  have  given  the 
first  impulse  to  this  line  of  thought  in  his  great 
treatise  De  Trinitate.  But  St.  Augustine  in  his 
search  for  analogies  to  the  supreme  fact  of  the 
Trinity  hardly  gets  beyond  what  is  known  as 
‘ faculty-psychology.’  He  notes  a  certain  kind  of 
‘ trinity’  in  “memory,  understanding  and  will” 1 
or  again  in  “the  mind,  its  self-knowledge  and  its 
self-love.”  2  The  effort  is  made  to  find  in  our  con¬ 
sciousness  three  distinct  psychological  factors,  and 
then  to  apply  these  directly  to  the  three  Divine 
Persons  in  the  unity  of  the  Godhead.  The  attempt, 
if  not  wholly  impracticable,  is  at  least  attended 
with  very  great  difficulties;  for,  as  has  already  been 
seen,  the  “consciousness”  which  is  assumed  as  our 
point  of  departure  is  the  unitary  consciousness  of 
the  individual  man.  But  let  us  note  one  or  two 
later  endeavors  along  similar  lines  in  the  writings 
of  theologians  and  schoolmen  of  the  West.  The 
method  used  is  still  that  of  introspection.  It  is 
urged,  for  example,  that  the  being  who  knows 
himself  in  this  act  of  self-knowledge  at  once  differ¬ 
entiates  himself  as  Subject’  and  ‘object.’  These, 
it  is  alleged,  are  two  distinct  and  quasi-separate 
elements,  while  the  act  or  process  of  self-knowledge 
itself  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  third.  These  three 
elements,  thus  arrived  at,  are  immediately  inter- 

1  De  Trinitate,  Bk.  X.  2  Ibid.,  Bk.  IX. 


96 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


preted  as  representing  the  three  Divine  Persons 
respectively,  —  the  Father,  the  Son  and  the  Holy 
Spirit.  But  a  little  examination  will  show  that  the 
above  three  elements  or  ‘momenta’  cannot  fairly  be 
interpreted  as  three  proper  ‘persons’  or  ‘egos.’  For 
the  being  who  knows  himself  in  that  act  of  self- 
knowledge  is  after  all  not  two  (or  three)  but  one 
and  the  same  person,  —  the  same  individual,  — • 
throughout.  Unitary  consciousness,  as  it  is  the 
point  of  departure,  so  it  is  the  terminus  ad  quern 
of  this  line  of  thought. 

Again,  a  point  of  departure  for  Trinitarian  ex¬ 
position  has  been  found  in  the  psychological  and 
spiritual  experience  of  love.  Taking  love  as  our 
postulate,  it  is  argued  that  this  implies  a  subject 
loving  and  an  object  beloved.  Moreover,  the  love 
itself  is  alleged  to  be  the  ‘bond  of  union’  between 
lover  and  beloved  one.  These  three  factors,  — 
the  loving  subject,  the  object  of  love  and  the  love 
itself  (i.e.  the  mutual  love  between  subject  and 
object),  —  are  taken  to  represent  the  three  Persons 
of  the  Blessed  Trinity.  The  Father  and  the  Son 
are  united  in  the  bond  of  mutual  affection,  and  this 
bond  is  taken  to  represent  the  third  Divine  Person, 
or  Holy  Spirit.  This  illustration  implies  a  plu¬ 
rality  of  persons  in  the  concrete,  objective  sense,  — 
that  is,  a  plurality  of  beings;  unless,  indeed,  the 
love  is  self-love.  But  if  it  be  understood  as  a  case 
of  reflective  self-love,  then  we  are  left  (as  in  the 
case  of  self-knowledge  and  self-consciousness)  with 


THE  DIVINE  TRINITY 


97 


a  single,  unitary  personality.  Furthermore,  the  love 
of  the  ‘subject’  for  the  ‘object’  and  the  answering 
love  of  the  ‘object’  for  the  ‘subject,’  —  these  after 
all  are  (metaphysically  speaking)  two  loves  and  not 
one;  two  acts  of  two  distinct  agents,  and  not  one 
and  the  same.  They  can  therefore  hardly  supply 
us  with  an  analogue  to  a  third  concrete  person. 
Moreover,  love,  as  such,  is  a  function  or  an  activity 
rather  than  a  person .  The  individual  mind  or  soul 
as  such,  even  in  its  process  of  self-reflection,  is,  after 
all,  but  a  single  ‘ego’  —  not  a  plurality  of  ‘egos.’ 

The  illustration  of  Love,  although  it  hardly 
carries  us  the  length  of  three  persons  in  the  Divine 
nature  or  being,  is,  none  the  less,  full  of  profound 
significance.  Once  given  the  fact  of  the  Trinity, 
love  in  its  implications  affords  us  a  profound  and 
helpful  interpretation  of  the  mutual  relations  of 
the  three  Divine  Persons.  The  ternary  afforded 
by  the  loving  subject,  the  object  of  love  and  the 
love  itself  as  the  mutual  bond  between  them  may 
be  acknowledged  as  perhaps  the  highest  illustration 
of  the  life  of  the  Trinity,  even  though  by  itself  it 
hardly  carries  us  to  the  extent  of  three  self-conscious 
Divine  Persons. 

We  are  then  after  all  thrown  back  upon  our 
method  of  indirect  rather  than  direct  application 
of  the  facts  of  consciousness  to  the  great  fact  of 
the  Trinity.  The  application  can  only  be  made,  as 
I  believe,  when  one  of  the  factors,  —  namely,  the 
‘person’  in  the  restricted  sense  of  the  means  or 


98 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


instrument  of  consciousness,  —  is  abstracted  from 
the  other  factor,  —  i.e.  the  ‘  substance  ’  or  ground 
of  consciousness,  —  and  then  ‘posited’  thrice  (that 
is,  multiplied  by  three).  The  Divine  consciousness, 
so  conceived,  will  neither  be  strictly  and  absolutely 
one  nor  yet  will  it  be  distinctly  and  definitely  three. 
It  will  be  one  in  its  ground,  three  in  its  instrumen¬ 
tality.  Thus  we  shall  recognize  the  Divine  Being 
from  this  point  of  view  as  a  plural  unit,  —  a  triune 
consciousness.  Of  such  a  Being  (as  has  been  said) 
we  have  no  experience  within  the  world  of  created 
existences;  GOD  is  a  transcendent  and  unique 
Reality,  —  eternal,  unoriginate  and  inscrutable. 


VII 

How,  then,  shall  we  define  this  ‘personality’  in 
the  stricter  and  more  abstract  sense  of  the  term? 
From  the  point  of  view  of  Nicene  orthodoxy  a 
‘person’  logically  considered  is  a  substance,  —  an 
‘hypostasis.’  But  from  the  point  of  view  of  the 
‘Athanasian’  Creed,  as  we  have  already  seen, 
‘person’  is  expressly  distinguished  from  ‘substance.’ 
What  then  is  this  bi  ov  of  consciousness,  —  this 
instrument  of  self-knowing?  Is  it  perhaps  to  be 
classed  as  a  ‘quality’  or  ‘attribute’,  —  in  this 
case  an  attribute  of  Godhead?  Hardly  so,  it  would 
appear;  for  if  (as  we  have  seen)  its  relative  non¬ 
substantiality  has  already  been  affirmed,  it  seems 
difficult  to  think  of  ‘personality’  as  either  a  prop- 


THE  DIVINE  TRINITY 


99 


erty  or  a  quality  of  that  which  is  ‘substantial.’ 
But  perhaps  a  more  weighty  objection  to  the 
definition  of  ‘personality’  as  an  attribute  or  quality 
of  Godhead  is  the  following  consideration,  —  viz., 
Why  should  the  ‘qualities’  or  ‘attributes’  of  God¬ 
head  be  limited  or  restricted  to  three ?  Are  not  these 
‘qualities’  properties  which  inhere  in  the  one  ‘sub¬ 
stance’  of  the  Godhead,  and  are  therefore  shared 
in  equally  by  all  three  of  the  Divine  Persons? 
Thus,  for  example,  if  eternity  be  taken  as  an 
attribute  of  Godhead,  not  only  is  the  Father 
affirmed  to  be  eternal,  but  in  like  manner  the  Son 
and  the  Holy  Ghost  are  equally  affirmed  to  be 
eternal.  The  same  is  also  true  of  the  attributes  of 
uncreatedness  and  of  omnipotence,  as  stated  in  the 
‘Athanasian’  Creed.  But  these  which  we  have 
just  enumerated  are  ‘metaphysical’  attributes  of 
the  Divine  Being.  In  addition  to  these,  we  must 
also  recognize  a  group  of  attributes  known  as 
‘moral’  or  ‘spiritual.’  Under  this  head  are  those 
majestic  attributes  of  righteousness,  holiness  and 
truth,  as  well  as  those  winning  and  gracious  quali¬ 
ties  of  mercy  and  pity.  And  above  and  through 
all  is  the  supreme  quality  of  love.  We  certainly 
cannot  stop  short  with  a  trinity  of  “attributes” 
of  Godhead,  any  more  than  we  could  arbitrarily 
limit  the  infinitely  varied  hues  and  tones  of  color 
to  three.  Evidently,  then,  Triune  ‘personality’ 
is  not  to  be  construed  as  a  ‘quality’  or  ‘attribute’ 
of  Godhead,  in  the  sense  of  those  which  are  usually 


IOO 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


understood  to  be  the  “Divine  attributes’7  as  set 
forth  by  our  systematic  theologians. 

There  remains,  then,  the  logical  category  of  ‘  re¬ 
lation.’  Are  the  three  Divine  ‘persons’  to  be  under¬ 
stood  as  three  eternal  ‘relations’  within  the  Godhead? 
They  are  so  interpreted  by  St.  Thomas  Aquinas. 
“A  divine  person,”  says  he,  “signifies  a  relation 
of  origin  (existing)  after  the  manner  of  a  ‘substance’ 
or  ‘hypostasis’  in  the  divine  nature.”1  Here  (to 
make  use  of  a  colloquialism)  St.  Thomas  would 
seem  to  be  endeavoring  to  “carry  water  on  both 
shoulders.”  By  defining  personality  as  ‘relation’ 
he  distinguishes  it  from  ‘substance,’  yet  in  the 
same  breath  he  seeks  to  reaffirm  its  substantiality 
by  saying  that  it  exists  “after  the  manner  of  a 
substance.”  The  relations  which  St.  Thomas  al¬ 
leges  as  the  constitutive  principles  of  ‘personality’ 
in  the  Godhead  are  “relations  of  origin.”  Paternity 
is  the  characteristic  of  the  Father,  filiation  of  the 
Son  and  ‘procession’  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  (it 
may  be  asked)  can  these  personal  “relations  of 
origin”  within  the  Godhead  be  properly  limited 
to  three?  Let  us  consider.  Three  ‘persons’  are 
here  in  question;  —  the  ‘persons,’  namely,  of  the 
Father,  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  and 
these  sustain  to  each  other  certain  “relations  of 
origin.”  Let  us  take  as  a  human  analogue  the 

1  “Persona  divina  relationem  originis  significat  per  modum 
substantiae  seu  ‘hypostasis’  in  divina  natura.”  Summa  Theol. 
I.  xxix.  4. 


THE  DIVINE  TRINITY 


IOI 


original  Adamic  family  as  described  in  the  fourth 
chapter  of  Genesis,1  using  the  latter,  just  now,  simply 
for  the  purpose  of  illustration.  Three  persons  are 
here  in  question;  —  Adam,  his  wife  and  their  son, 
Seth.  Relations  of  origin  exist  between  each  two 
of  these  persons  taken  severally.  To  his  son,  Adam 
sustains  the  relation  of  paternity,  while  Seth  in 
turn  sustains  to  his  father  the  relation  of  filiation 
or  sonship.  Here,  then,  to  begin  with,  are  two  dis¬ 
tinct  (though  complementary)  relations.  Again, 
between  Adam  and  his  wife  are  two  more  ‘relations 
of  origin,’  quite  distinct  from  ‘paternity’  and 
‘filiation.’  Finally,  as  between  Eve  and  her  son 
there  are  still  two  other  relations,  —  those  of 
maternity  and  of  filiation  corresponding  thereto  (the 
latter  being  a  different  relation  to  that  which  Seth 
as  son  sustains  to  his  father).  We  have,  then,  as 
between  the  three  members  of  the  original  human 
family  no  less  than  six  different  “relations  of  origin,” 
and  there  is  certainly  no  reason  to  suppose  that 
the  relations  which  subsist  between  the  Persons  in 
the  Godhead  are  any  less  subtle  and  varied  than 
those  which  obtain  in  the  human  parallel  which 
we  have  cited.  The  analogy  between  the  Adamic 
family  and  the  Holy  Trinity  is  of  course  far  from 
exact;  for  all  thought  of  physical  derivation  must 
be  eliminated  from  our  conception  of  Godhead. 
Yet  it  certainly  must  be  allowed  that  (as  between 
the  two  cases)  there  is  a  parallel;  inasmuch  as 

1  verse  25. 


102 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


while  GOD  the  Father  is  Himself  the  Son  of  no  one, 
His  Only-begotten  Son  is  derived  from  Him  by  the 
act  and  process  of  eternal  ‘ generation.’  So,  while 
Adam  had  no  human  parent  or  source  of  being, 
Eve  was  derived  from  Adam  alone.  Again,  as  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  said  to  ‘proceed’  both  from  the 
Father  and  from  the  Son,  even  so  Seth,  the  child 
of  Adam  and  of  Eve,  derived  his  origin  from  both 
his  parents.  It  would,  therefore,  seem  evident  that 
we  must  allow,  just  as  in  the  human  analogue,  so 
also  in  the  case  of  the  Godhead  itself,  more  than 
three  several  ‘relations  of  origin.’  Aquinas’s 
attempt  to  interpret  the  three  ‘relations  of  origin’ 

—  namely,  paternity,  filiation  and  procession  — 
as  themselves  the  basis  of  tri-personality  in  the 
Godhead  cannot  be  regarded  as  successful.  Never¬ 
theless  it  was  an  effort  in  the  right  direction,  —  an 
effort  to  establish  the  objective  reality  of  the 
three  eternal  distinctions  in  the  Godhead  without 
at  the  same  time  defining  them  in  terms  of  ‘sub¬ 
stance.’  St.  Thomas’s  interpretation  of  the  Trinity 
of  ‘persons’  as  a  trinity  of  ‘relations’  in  the  God¬ 
head  seems  after  all  to  mark  the  furthest  point  of 
advance  in  Scholastic,  or  even  in  more  recent  Trini¬ 
tarian  theology.  To  express  the  three  personal 
‘distinctions’  in  the  Godhead,  the  Scholastic  term 
‘ subsistentia ’  was  employed.  The  ‘persons’  are 
in  themselves  hardly  capable  of  being  defined 
otherwise  than  as  ‘persons’  in  a  restricted  sense, 

—  three  ‘somewhats,’ —  a  triad  of  real  distinctions, 


THE  DIVINE  TRINITY 


103 


—  the  threefold  instrument  of  consciousness  within 
the  Godhead.  Relatively  ‘  non-substantial,’  the 
three  ‘persons’  are  not  in  themselves  unreal.  They 
are  by  no  means  pure  abstractions.  It  is  only 
that  the  term  ‘person’  is  here  employed  (as  St. 
Augustine  himself  acknowledged)  simply  for  the 
lack  of  a  better  name,  —  “non  ut  id  diceretur,  sed 
ne  taceretur.” 

It  remains,  then,  that  two  distinct  meanings  of 
the  term  ‘person’  are  to  be  recognized;  or  (other¬ 
wise  stated),  ‘person,’  strictly  interpreted,  is  to  be 
distinguished  from  ‘hypostasis.’  The  former,  as 
the  bi  ov  of  consciousness,  is  relatively  abstract 
(though  not  unreal).  The  latter  indicates  a  self- 
conscious,  spiritual  being  sensu  concreto.  In  the 
words  of  St.  Athanasius  (Ep.  ad  Afros  Epis.  4), 
“  ‘ Hypostasis’  is  ‘ousia’  (being)  and  has  no  other 
significance”  (17  be  vToaraais  ovaia  ecrr'i,  Kal  ovbev 
aXXo  arjidaivo^ov  exet). 


VIII 

The  two  distinct  lines  of  Trinitarian  interpreta¬ 
tion  and  exposition  which  I  have  endeavored  to  set 
forth  are  united  in  the  Latin  Creed  which  has  been 
called  by  the  name  of  St.  Athanasius,  though  it 
may  well  be  questioned  whether  the  author  (or 
authors)  of  that  document  were  consciously  aware 
of  all  that  was  implied  in  the  statements  formulated 
therein.  But  they  “builded  better  than  they  knew.” 


104 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


As  we  review  their  work  to-day  we  cannot  fail 
to  recognize  in  their  labors  the  energizing  of  a 
wisdom  and  of  a  Spirit  higher  than  their  own.  It 
was  not  in  vain  that  the  Saviour  promised  to  His 
disciples,  —  that  is,  to  His  Church,  —  the  presence 
of  the  Comforter  who  should  guide  them  into  all 
the  truth.  Surely  we  may  see  the  fulfilment  of 
the  Saviour’s  promise  in  the  witness  of  the  historic 
Creeds. 

Let  us,  then,  briefly  consider  how  these  two  dis¬ 
tinct  lines  of  Trinitarian  interpretation,  —  which  we 
may  call  respectively  the  Western  (or  Augustinian) 
and  the  Greek  (or  Nicene),  —  are  found  united  in 
the  so-called  ‘Athanasian’  Creed.  In  the  same 
connection  we  shall  briefly  review  the  original 
Nicene  statement  in  its  characteristic  features.  The 
comparison  of  these  two  will  enable  us  to  bring  to 
a  close  our  present  study  of  the  Trinitarian  problem. 

In  considering  the  ‘Athanasian’  Creed  it  is  im¬ 
portant  to  note  the  following  fact  (which  is  fre¬ 
quently  overlooked);  namely,  that  in  the  distinc¬ 
tively  Trinitarian  portion  of  this  Symbol  (verses 
3  to  26,  inclusive)  two  sections  are  to  be  distin¬ 
guished.  The  first  section,  dealing  with  the  ab¬ 
solute  attributes  and  Names  of  the  Godhead,  — 
which  Names  or  attributes  are  said  to  belong  to 
each  of  the  three  ‘  Persons  ’  singly,  —  includes 
verses  3  to  19,  its  teaching  being  summed  up  in 
verse  19;  —  “For,  just  as  we  are  compelled  by  the 
Christian  verity  to  confess  each  ‘Person’  singly  as 


THE  DIVINE  TRINITY 


105 


‘God’  and  ‘Lord,’  so  by  the  Catholic  religion  we 
are  forbidden  to  say  ‘three  Gods  or  Lords.’”  It  is 
important  to  bear  in  mind  the  fact  that  it  is  in 
this  first  section  that  the  distinctive  Trinitarian  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  Symbol  is  set  forth.  The  Second  and 
Third  ‘Persons,’  like  the  First,  are  ‘uncreated,’ 
'infinite’  and  ‘eternal.’  They,  even  as  the  First 
‘Person,’  and  in  exactly  the  same  sense,  are  said 
to  be  ‘Omnipotent,’  God  and  Lord.  These  are  the 
specific  attributes  and  the  distinctive  Names  which 
belong  to  the  Godhead,  and  which  are  incommuni¬ 
cable  to  any  creature.  It  is  by  their  possession 
of  these  that  the  three  ‘  Persons  ’  are  One :  —  not 
‘three  GODS  or  three  Eternals,  but  One  Eternal 
and  ONE  GOD.’  This  first  section  of  the  Symbol, 
therefore,  views  the  Divine  Trinity  from  the  stand¬ 
point  of  the  absolute.  While  the  three  ‘Persons’ 
are  distinguished  by  the  Names  ‘Father,’  ‘Son’ 
and  ‘Holy  Ghost,’  the  characteristics  of  the  Divine 
Three  as  They  are  related  to  each  other  are  not 
as  yet  explained.  But  in  the  second  section  (verses 
20  to  23,  inclusive)  this  explanation  is  given  as 
follows:  —  “The  Father  is  made  from  (by)  none, — 
neither  created  nor  begotten:  the  Son  is  from  (by) 
the  Father  alone;  not  ‘made’  nor  ‘created,’  but 
‘begotten’:  the  Holy  Ghost  is  from  (by)  the  Father 
and  the  Son;  not  ‘made’  nor  ‘created’  nor  ‘be¬ 
gotten,’  but  ‘proceeding.’”  And  then  the  Creed, 
returning  from  the  standpoint  of  related  to  that 
of  absolute  existence,  sets  aside  any  thought  of 


io6 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


subordination  or  of  real  priority  in  the  Holy 
Trinity  by  the  summary  statement  which  follows 
in  verse  24; —  “And  in  this  Trinity  there  is  no 
‘before’  or  ‘after/  no  ‘greater’  or  ‘less/  but  the 
whole  three  ‘Persons’  (totae  tres  personae)  are 
co-eternal  with  each  other  and  co-equal.”  1 

By  its  adoption  of  the  Nicene  conceptions  of 
‘generation’  and  ‘procession/  supplemented  by  the 
‘Filioque’  statement,  the  Quicunque  Vult  relates 
itself  integrally  to  the  previous  doctrinal  develop¬ 
ment;  while  by  its  own  distinctive  teaching  it  has 
in  fact  advanced  beyond  the  previous  ‘Nicene’ 
stage.  This  fact  (frequently  overlooked)  is  in 
accordance  with  the  general  law  of  evolution, 
whereby  the  later  and  more  highly-developed  form 
takes  up  into  itself  and  assimilates  that  which  be¬ 
longs  to  the  previous  stage  of  development.  In 
the  light  of  this  fact  we  must  recognize  in  the 
Symbolum  Quicunque  or  so-called  ‘Athanasian’ 
Creed  the  most  comprehensive  statement  of  Trini¬ 
tarian  doctrine  which  is  to  be  found  among  the 
formulas  of  the  Church.  Inferior  to  the  ‘Nicene’ 
Creed  in  point  of  ecumenical  authority,  the  Qui¬ 
cunque  Vult  surpasses  the  Nicene  Creed  in  scientific 
comprehensiveness.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  the 
Quicunque  has  remained  to  the  Western  mind  for 
so  many  centuries  as  the  classical  expression  and 
safeguard  of  the  great  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  And 

1  “  Et  in  hac  Trinitate  nihil  prius  aut  posterius,  nihil  majus  aut 
minus.  Sed  totae  tres  Personae  coaeternae  sibi  sunt,  et  coaequales.” 


THE  DIVINE  TRINITY 


107 


in  spite  of  all  that  is  alleged  about  the  difficulty, 
or  even  the  unintelligibility  of  this  Creed,  its  dis¬ 
tinctive  teaching  is  probably,  after  all,  closer  and 
more  familiar  to  us,  is  more  readily  assimilated 
by  minds  trained  to  blunt  and  practical  Western 
ways  of  thinking  than  are  the  subtle  distinctions 
of  Greek  theology.  The  Western  mind  knows 
nothing  of  ‘grades’  of  Godhead.  To  its  view,  Christ 
is  either  GOD  in  the  absolute  sense  or  He  is  not 
GOD.  The  Latin,  like  the  later  Western  languages, 
knows  nothing  of  the  distinction  between  Oeos  and 
6  Oeos.  It  is  impossible  for  the  type  of  mind  rep¬ 
resented  by  the  writer  of  the  Symbolum  Quicunque 
to  rest  in  the  thought  of  a  merely  relative  Godhead 
as  belonging  to  the  Son  or  to  the  Holy  Spirit. 
From  the  Augustinian  point  of  view,  the  bond  of 
the  Divine  unity  is  not  found  in  the  Person  of  the 
Father,  but  rather  in  ‘Jehovah/  the  Self-existent 
One,  who  subsists  in  each  and  all  of  the  three 
Divine  ‘Persons.’  The  distinctive  Trinitarian 
teaching  of  the  Quicunque  is,  after  all,  surprisingly 
simple.  It  may  be  said  to  be  summed  up  by  the 
statement  that  each  of  the  three  Divine  ‘persons’,  — 
the  Father,  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  —  is 
absolutely  and  unqualifiedly  GOD;  and  yet  that 
there  are  not  three  GODS  but  ONE  GOD.  The 
difficulty  arises  from  the  fact  that  this  distinctive 
teaching  is  linked  on  to  the  (relatively  distinct) 
Nicene  doctrinal  statement.  The  two  doctrinal 
‘tropi’  are  relatively  distinct  from  each  other, 


io8 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


inasmuch  as  each  has  its  own  point  of  departure, 
from  which  it  moves  logically  over  its  own  lines. 
The  two  systems,  although  closely  related  to  each 
other,  do  not  conflict.  The  starting-point  of  the 
‘Nicene’  Creed  is  in  the  ‘One  God’  as  identified 
with  the  Person  of  the  Father;  from  this  point  it 
proceeds  logically  by  virtue  of  the  principles  of 
‘eternal  generation’  and  of  ‘procession.’  The 
starting-point  of  the  Quicunque  Vult  is  in  the  ‘One 
God’  as  identified  with  Jehovah,  the  Self-existent 
One;  taken  in  connection  with  the  further  fact 
that  this  Supreme  Name  is  rightly  attributed  to 
Him  who  is  called  the  ‘Son’  and  to  Him  who  is 
called  the  ‘Holy  Spirit,’  as  well  as  to  Him  who  is 
called  the  ‘Father.’ 


IX 

On  the  other  hand,  the  characteristic  features 
of  the  Nicene  conception  are  as  follows:  —  (a)  The 
guarantee  of  the  Divine  unity  is  found  in  the 
Person  of  the  Father,  who  is  the  ‘One  God’  ( els 
0 eos).  (b)  The  Son  is  from  (4k)  the  ‘substance’ 
or  ‘essence’  of  the  Father;  eternally  begotten; 
and  therefore  the  Son  also  is  ‘God’  (Oeos).  The 
title  Geos  may  be  said  to  be  given  to  the  Son  generi- 
cally  rather  than  individually  or  personally.  “The 
Son  is  God,  but  God  is  not  the  Son.”  The  Father 
is  6  0cos,  ‘God,’  i.e.,  primarily  and  per  eminentiam. 
(c)  No  distinction  is  drawn  between  ‘substance’  or 
‘essence’  (ova La)  and  ‘person’  (inroaraais) ;  these 


THE  DIVINE  TRINITY 


109 


terms  are  treated  as  synonymous  in  the  anathema 
which  follows  the  Creed  of  a.d.  325.  Of  course 
we  do  not  forget  that  this  distinction  was  later 
drawn  by  the  ‘Cappadocian’  theologians,  and  so 
passed  into  the  Greek  theology;  yet  it  is  to  be 
remembered  that  the  ‘  ousia  ’  which  is  thus  dis¬ 
tinguished  from  ‘hypostasis’  is  only  the  ‘second 
ousia’  of  Greek  logic,  —  i.e.,  generic  being  or  essence, 

—  rather  than  the  primary  ‘ousia’  (tpoott]  ova  La) 
or  individual  being.  That  is  to  say,  the  three 
Divine  Hypostases  are  (from  one  point  of  view) 
three  individual  beings.  The  Greek  distinction 
between  ‘hypostasis’  and  ‘ousia’  is  the  distinction 
between  ‘person’  and  ‘substance’  only  in  so  far  as 
‘individual’  is  distinguished  from  ‘generic’  being. 
This  fact  has  constantly  been  overlooked  or  disre¬ 
garded  by  theologians;  but  it  is  most  important 
that  it  be  clearly  grasped  and  constantly  kept  in 
view;  otherwise  our  idea  of  the  Nicene  theology 
must  remain  more  or  less  confused,  (d)  The  Son 
is  opoovaios  with  the  Father.  Exactly  what  does 
this  much-debated  term  mean?  It  means  simply 
“of  one  ‘substance’  or  ‘essence  with.’”  The  Son 
is  ‘homoousios’  with  the  Father  for  two  reasons: 

—  (1)  because  the  very  same  definition  of  Godhead 
which  is  predicated  of  the  Father  is  predicated  also 
of  the  Son.1  (2)  Because  the  Son  as  the  Father’s 

1  Cp.  St.  Basil,  Ep.  xxxviii.  2. —  “Those  who  are  described  by 
the  same  definition  of  ‘essence’  are  homoousioi”  nai  eicnu  (XXX17X01  s 
onoovoLOL  oi  ry  atir <£  Xoycj}  rrjs  ovaias  viroy pa^o^evoi.  Aristotle  in  his 


no 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


U lop  (essential  characteristic  or  attribute)  belongs 
to  the  Father’s  ‘being’  or  ‘essence.’  But  it  is  to 
be  noted  that  the  meaning  of  dfioovacos  is  not  to 
be  limited  to  that  of  strict  numerical  identity;  for 
the  Son  as  Son  has  His  own  proper  being,  distinct 
from  that  of  the  Father.  While  it  is  true  that  as 
the  Father’s  ‘Word’  or  ‘Wisdom’  the  Son  belongs 
to  the  identic  essence  of  the  Father,  yet  at  the  same 
time  it  remains  true  that  as  ‘Son’  He  is  a  distinct 
personal  Being,  as  “God  ‘from’  (or  ‘out  of’)  God.” 
The  Son  is  not  to  be  identified  with  the  Father  in  a 
Sabellian  sense.  St.  Athanasius  in  his  brief  but 
weighty  Statement  of  Faith  or  ‘Ecthesis,’  while 
affirming  the  d/doovcnos,  expressly  and  emphatically 

chapter  on  Unity  (Metaphysics,  Book  IV.  ch.  6)  after  distinguishing 
‘unity  in  respect  to  essence’  (k  naO’  avro )  from  accidental  unity, 
proceeds  further  to  distinguish  three  different  senses  of  ‘unity  in 
respect  to  essence,’  as  follows;  —  (a)  continuity  (to  avvexes)  which 
seems  to  carry  with  it  the  idea  of  physical  oneness,  as  that  of  the 
hand  with  the  body;  (b)  generic  or  specific  unity;  and  (c)  unity 
in  respect  to  definition  (to  which  corresponds  unity  of  conception 
in  the  mind  which  frames  or  apprehends  the  definition).  It  is 
unity  in  this  third  sense  which  gives  a  key  to  the  meaning  of 
d/j.oovo'ios  as  used  by  the  Greek  orthodox  Fathers.  Not  that  the 
unity  between  the  Son  and  the  Father  is  conceived  by  them  as 
a  mere  abstraction,  however;  it  represents  the  Georgs,  or  Divine 
nature,  which  (as  St.  Athanasius  says)  is  k  rod  Harpds  eis  t6v  ' Tiov . 
St.  Gregory  Nazianzen  (Oration  XXX.  20)  suggests  the  com¬ 
parison  of  the  relation  sustained  by  the  Son  of  God  to  the  Father 
with  that  between  the  ‘definition’  and  the  ‘thing  defined.’  See 
also  Orat.  XXXVIII.  13,  where  the  Son  is  called  the  Father’s 
opos  Kal  X070S.  This  seems  to  be  another  way  of  saying  that 
the  Son  is  the  Father’s  ‘image’;  for  the  ‘definition’  is  a  kind  of 
‘image’  of  the  thing  defined. 


THE  DIVINE  TRINITY 


III 


rejects  the  phrase  povoovaos ,  by  which,  he  says, 
the  ‘ heretics’  (Sabellians)  “destroy  the  existence 
of  the  ‘Son’”  ( avaipovvres  to  elv cu  rod  'T 10D).  The 
unity  which  exists  as  between  the  Son  and  the 
Father  does  not  exclude  their  distinction;  but  it 
remains  true,  in  the  words  of  Athanasius,  that  “there 
is  but  one  kind  (or  species)  of  Divinity,  which  is 
also  in  the  Logos”  ev  yap  eldos  OeorrjTOS,  oivep  eari 
Kal  kv  rw  Aoyw.1  This  unity  of  nature  does  not, 
moreover,  exclude  a  certain  subordination  of  the 
Son,  as  Son,  to  the  Eternal  Father;  indeed,  both 
the  unity  of  nature  and  the  subordination  in  dig¬ 
nity  are  based  upon  the  same  fact  of  the  Divine 
generation  of  the  ‘Son’  from  the  personal  Being  of 
God  the  Father. 

From  this  comparison  of  the  statements  of  the 
Quicunque  Vult  with  the  statements  of  the  Nicene 
orthodoxy  it  becomes  evident  that  one  is  here 
dealing  with  two  distinct  theological  ‘tropi’  or 
lines  of  thought.  According  to  the  former  (the 
Western  or  Augustinian)  sequence  of  ideas  ‘person’ 
bears  a  relatively  abstract  meaning,  while  the 
Greek  ‘hypostasis’  always  remains  concrete.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  phrase  ‘of  one  substance’ 
bears  a  meaning  in  the  Western  formulary  which 
cannot  be  fully  or  absolutely  identified  with  the 
opoowLov  of  the  Nicene  Creed  and  of  the  Greek 
orthodox  Fathers.  This  is  for  the  reason  that 

1  Orat.  III.  contr.  Arian.  §  15. 


112 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


‘homoousios’  does  not  shut  out  the  meaning  of 
‘ generic ’  or  ‘specific’  unity  as  existing  between 
the  Father  and  the  Son,  but  rather  includes  it. 
From  one  point  of  view,  the  ‘unity  of  substance’ 
as  conceived  by  Western  orthodoxy  is  more  con¬ 
crete,  while  the  o/ioovaiov  of  the  Greeks  admits  also 
of  an  abstract  meaning.  In  a  word,  while  the 
characteristic  feature  of  Nicene  orthodoxy  is  the 
‘logic  of  being,’  the  distinctive  mark  of  Western 
Trinitarianism  is  its  ‘analytic  of  personality.’ 

It  is  true  that  the  distinction  between  the  two 
meanings  of  ‘person,’  —  the  concreter  and  the 
more  abstract,  —  was  not  present  to  the  minds  of 
those  who  framed  the  Symbolum  Quicunque;  never¬ 
theless  this  distinction  lies  beneath  the  surface  of 
that  formulary,  in  much  the  same  way  in  which 
the  Nicene  Creed  (in  its  Greek  form)  may  be  said 
to  imply  not  only  the  underived  Godhead  of  the 
Second  Divine  Person  but  also  the  ‘procession’  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  from  the  Person  of  the  Son  as  well 
as  from  the  Person  of  the  Father.  This  is  but  an 
illustration  of  the  working  of  that  principle  of  evo¬ 
lution  which  is  apparent  all  through  the  history  of 
Christian  doctrine,  whereby  that  which  is  implicit 
in  earlier  forms  is  gradually  brought  forth  into 
fuller  and  completer  expression.  This  process  in 
its  earlier  stages  is  bound  to  be  attended  by  more 
or  less  of  intellectual  confusion,  which  it  is  the 
effort  of  scientific  thinking  to  eliminate. 

But  it  must  never  be  forgotten  that  intellectual 


THE  DIVINE  TRINITY 


113 


apprehension  as  well  as  logical  thought  finds  its 
proper  outcome  and  issue  only  in  adoration  and 
worship  of  the  all-transcendent  One.  —  “The  Catho¬ 
lic  faith  is  this,  —  that  we  worship  one  God  in 
Trinity  and  Trinity  in  unity.”  Human  thought 
and  imagination  find  their  full  fruition  only  in  that 
vision  of  God  (as  yet  imperfect)  in  which  true 
blessedness  shall  at  last  be  realized. 

“A  quella  luce  cotal  si  diventa, 

Che  volgersi  da  lei  per  altro  aspetto 
E  impossibil  che  mai  si  consenta; 

Perd  che  il  ben ,  ch ’  e  del  volere  obbietto, 

Tutto  s’  accoglie  in  lei;  e  juor  di  quella 
E  difettivo  do  che  li  e  perfetto.”  1 

Note.  As  to  the  so-called  “damnatory  clauses” 
of  the  ‘Athanasian’  Creed,  it  must  not  be  forgotten 
that  the  original  Nicene  Creed  of  a.d.  325  was  also 
fortified  with  anathemas.  Leaving  aside  just  now 
the  question  of  ecclesiastical  discipline  and  of  the 
rightness  or  wrongness  of  these  minatory  clauses, 
we  may  at  any  rate  recognize  this  fact ;  —  that  to 
attain  spiritual  and  intellectual  maturity  and 
ripeness  of  growth  we  must  respond  to  the  truth, 

1  “In  presence  of  that  Light  one  such  becomes, 

That  to  withdraw  therefrom  for  other  prospect 
It  is  impossible  he  e’er  consent; 

Because  the  Good,  which  object  is  of  will, 

Is  gathered  all  in  this,  and  out  of  it 
That  is  defective  which  is  perfect  there.” 

Dante,  Paradiso  XXXIII.  (Longfellow’s  trans.) 


1 14  SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 

as  presented  to  us,  in  all  its  fulness.  In  this  sense 
we  may  construe  the  warning,  “Qui  ergo  vult 
salvus  esse,  ita  de  Trinitate  sentiat.”  When 
spiritual  truth  is  offered  to  us  for  our  acceptance, 
we  reject  it  only  on  penalty  of  moral  and  spiritual 
loss.  “Let  us  then,”  says  St.  Paul  to  the  Philippian 
disciples,  —  “let  us  then,  so  many  as  are  perfect 
(mature,  full-grown)  be  thus  minded.”  Yet  there 
is  room  for  charity  and  hope  as  well  as  for  severity. 
For,  as  the  Apostle  adds,  “if  in  anything  ye  be 
otherwise  minded,  God  shall  reveal  even  this  unto 
you.”  1  If,  however,  the  Church  of  God  is  to  be 
true  to  herself  and  to  the  truth  which  has  been 
committed  to  her,  she  must  not  fail  to  hold  aloft 
the  shield  of  Trinitarian  faith  in  all  its  fulness  and 
completeness.  —  “Whereunto  we  have  already  at¬ 
tained,  let  us  walk  by  the  same  rule,  let  us  mind 
the  same  thing.”  2 

1  Phil.  iii.  15.  2  PhiL  iii.  l6. 


CHAPTER  IV 


The  Personality  of  the  God-Man 

The  personality  of  Jesus  Christ  offers  a  supreme 
challenge  to  the  reverent  thought  of  man.  From 
the  standpoint  of  Christian  faith  our  Lord  appears 
as  both  human  and  more  than  human. 

“Thou  seemest  human  and  Divine; 

The  highest ,  holiest  manhood  Thou.” 

With  the  New  Testament  record  in  our  hands  we 
approach  the  problem  of  the  Personality  of  Jesus 
Christ.  His  own  recorded  words  and  deeds  bear 
witness  to  two  outstanding  facts;  —  in  the  first 
place,  He  thought  and  spoke  of  Himself  as  Man; 
as  a  human  being  like  ourselves;  while  at  the  same 
time  the  evidence  shows  no  less  clearly  that  His 
sphere  both  of  action  and  of  self-conscious  thought 
far  transcended  the  plane  of  mere  humanity.  Into 
the  depths  of  the  self-consciousness  of  Christ  we 
may  not,  indeed,  penetrate.  It  is  He  and  He  alone 
who  possesses  the  key  to  that  sanctuary.  It  is  so 
easy  for  us  to  carry  over  our  own  mental  and 
psychical  limitations  and  ascribe  them  to  Him; 
it  is  so  easy  for  us  to  confuse  our  own  subjectivity 


n6 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


with  the  objective  Reality  which  is  Christ  Himself. 
It  is  indeed  true  that  our  Lord  in  becoming  incar¬ 
nate  assumed  the  limitations  of  a  normal  humanity; 
yet  at  the  same  time  it  remains  true  that  in  the  act 
of  His  incarnation  He  was  and  has  ever  thereafter 
remained  exactly  what  He  had  been  from  eter¬ 
nity,  —  the  Divine  Logos,  the  Son  of  God.  At 
the  same  time  it  is  an  unquestioned  fact  that 
Jesus  speaks  and  thinks  of  Himself  as  Man.  To 
the  Jews  on  one  occasion  He  said,  —  “Ye  seek  to 
kill  me,  a  man  (avO pcoirov)  who  hath  told  you  the 
truth  which  I  have  heard  from  God.”  1  Again,  to 
the  man  who  had  inquired  of  Him,  “Good  Master, 
what  shall  I  do  that  I  may  inherit  eternal  life?” 
Jesus  replied,  —  “Why  callest  thou  me  good? 
none  is  good  save  one,  that  is,  God.”  2  St.  Peter, 
even  after  the  Resurrection  and  Ascension  into 
heaven,  spoke  and  thought  of  Jesus  as  a  Man,3 
and  Stephen  at  his  martyrdom  bore  witness  to  Him 
as  the  Son  of  Man,  though  now  exalted  at  God’s 
right  hand  of  power.4  Indeed,  may  we  not  say  that 
the  whole  meaning  and  purpose  of  the  Incarnation 
is  nullified  if  the  impression  made  by  Jesus  upon 
His  contemporaries  was  other  than  a  human  im¬ 
pression;  if  those  men  who  saw  Him  and  heard 
Him  from  day  to  day,  —  those  who  were  brought 

1  St.  John  viii.  40. 

2  St.  Mark  x.  18;  cp.  St.  Matt.  xix.  17  (R.  V.  and  footnote); 
St.  Luke  xviii.  19. 

3  &v5pa,  Acts  ii.  22. 

4  Acts  vii.  56. 


THE  INCARNATION 


117 

up  with  Him  in  the  little  town  of  Nazareth  as  well 
as  those  who  had  to  do  with  Him  in  later  life,  — 
did  not  think  and  speak  of  Him  as  a  Man  like 
themselves.  That  they  did  so  speak  and  think 
of  Him  the  records  very  plainly  attest.  —  “Is  not 
this  the  carpenter’s  son?  is  not  his  mother  called 
Mary?  and  his  brethren  James  and  Joses  and  Simon 
and  Judas?  And  his  sisters,  are  they  not  all  with 
us?” 1  At  the  same  time  there  was  always  in 
Jesus  Christ  and  in  the  impact  of  His  personality,  — 
in  what  He  said  and  in  what  He  did,  —  yes,  even 
more,  in  what  He  was ,  —  a  something  mysterious 
and  transcendent;  a  something  that  impressed  upon 
those  who  reacted  to  His  presence  and  to  His 
personal  appeal  the  fact  that  This  was  no  ordinary 
human  being;  nay,  that  He  was  something  other  and 
higher  than  any  of  the  sons  of  men.  Such  was  the 
impression  made  upon  Simon  Peter  as  a  result  of 
the  miraculous  haul  of  fishes  on  the  Lake  of  Galilee. 
Falling  down  at  Jesus’  knees,  Peter  cried,  “Depart 
from  me,  for  I  am  a  sinful  man,  O  Lord.  For  he 
was  astonished,  and  all  that  were  with  him,  at  the 
draught  of  the  fishes  which  they  had  taken.” 2 
But  it  is  in  the  words  spoken  to  the  Pharisees  in 
the  Temple  near  the  close  of  His  earthly  career  that 
the  consciousness  of  Jesus  seems  as  it  were  to  rise 
to  its  highest  point.  To  the  Jews  who  had  said  to 
Him,  “Thou  art  not  yet  fifty  years  old,  and  hast 
thou  seen  Abraham?”  Jesus  answered,  “Verily, 

1  St.  Matt.  xiii.  55,  56.  2  St.  Luke  v.  8,  9. 


n8 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


verily  I  say  unto  you,  Before  Abraham  was,  I  AM.” 
In  their  stubborn  unbelief  His  enemies  “took  up 
stones  to  cast  at  him,”  1  regarding  Him  as  a  blas¬ 
phemer  who  impiously  intruded  himself  into  the 
place  of  Almighty  God.  But  their  very  unbelief  and 
rebellion  bore  witness  to  the  reality  of  His  claim. 

These  well-known  facts  of  the  Gospel  history, 
to  which  a  multitude  more  might  readily  be  added, 
unquestionably  indicate  as  its  central  Figure  a 
Being  who  was  both  God  and  Man.  It  is  the  task 
of  Christian  theology  upon  the  basis  of  these  facts 
to  seek  and  find  some  formula,  some  statement 
which  shall  interpret  to  our  minds  and  our  under¬ 
standing  this  unique  Personality  as  at  the  same 
time  both  Divine  and  human.  The  theology  of  the 
Incarnation  was  worked  out  (for  the  most  part) 
in  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries,  and  finds  expres¬ 
sion  in  the  statement  adopted  by  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon  in  the  year  451  a.d.  The  doctrine  of 
the  Incarnation  had  its  primary  reference  to  the 
act  of  the  Eternal  Word,  the  Son  of  God,  in  taking 
human  flesh  in  the  womb  of  the  Blessed  Virgin, 
and  in  assuming  therewith  a  human,  rational  soul. 
Now  for  the  elucidation  of  this  doctrine  we  need 
to  apply  first  of  all  that  same  key  of  ‘  personality  ’ 
which  we  have  already  applied  in  the  interpretation 
of  the  Holy  Trinity.  Moreover,  as  in  the  theology 
of  the  Trinity,  so  also  in  our  Christology  two  dis¬ 
tinct  points  of  view  and,  in  consequence,  two  rel- 

1  St.  John  viii.  57-59. 


THE  INCARNATION 


119 

atively  distinct  interpretations  are  to  be  recognized. 
These  may  for  convenience  be  termed  the  ‘Greek’ 
and  the  ‘modern’  or  ‘Western.’  We  have  seen 
embodied  in  the  ‘Athanasian’  Creed  two  distinct 
doctrinal  and  historical  strata,  representing  two 
successive  stages  in  the  development  of  the  one 
complete  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  The  theology  of 
the  Person  of  Christ  shows  a  similar  historical 
development.  The  original  ecumenical  statement 
of  the  doctrine  is  found  in  the  decree  of  the  Fourth 
General  Council,  —  that  of  Chalcedon.  Together 
with  this  decree,  the  letters  of  St.  Cyril,  Bishop  of 
Alexandria,  to  Nestorius,  and  also  the  letters  of 
St.  Leo,  Bishop  of  Rome,  to  Flavian  are  recognized 
as  of  ecumenical  authority.  The  substance  of  the 
doctrine  is  moreover  contained  in  the  second  part 
of  the  ‘Athanasian’  Creed,  which  deals  with  the 
Incarnation. 

The  doctrine  as  set  forth  at  Chalcedon  is  sum¬ 
marized  as  follows :  —  In  the  one  Person  of  Christ, 
the  God-man,  coexist  two  whole  and  complete 
‘natures,’  —  the  Divine  and  the  human.  To  quote 
the  language  of  the  decree  itself:  —  “The  ‘propriety’ 
(or  ‘distinctive  characteristic’)  of  each  nature 
being  preserved  (ccofopez^s  rrjs  idiOTrjTos  e/carepas 
<j)vae cos)  concurs  unto  one  Person  and  one  Hypostasis 
(or  personal  Subsistence),”  els  ev  npocruTrov  Kal  plav 
virbcrTGLcnv  awrpexovaRs.1  Here  there  are  three  terms 

1  Hahn,  Symbole  der  alten  Kirche,  p.  167.  In  the  ancient 
Latin  version  this  statement  runs  as  follows:  —  “Nusquam  sublata 


120 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


to  be  clearly  distinguished:  —  (i)  ‘Person’  (TrpoaooTrov, 
persona)  which,  as  we  have  already  seen,  ultimately 
points  to  the  ‘self’  in  its  strict  meaning  of  ‘personal 
centre  of  consciousness,’  and  which  we  may  venture 
to  designate  as  p1;  (2)  ‘Hypostasis,’  which  is  to 
be  construed  as  ‘personal  substance,’  or  ‘person’ 
in  the  concrete  sense  of  the  term.  Let  this  be 
indicated  by  p 2.  ‘Personality’  in  this  sense  of  the 
term  is  to  be  understood  as  including  the  whole 
content  of  consciousness,  with  its  several  faculties 
of  knowing,  feeling,  willing,  etc.,  and  their  opera¬ 
tions;  and  (3)  ‘nature’  (cjyvaLS,  natura),  which  may 
be  interpreted  as  ‘impersonal  substance  or  being/ 
—  i.e.,  as  the  ‘ground’  of  being,  —  physical,  psychi¬ 
cal  and  spiritual,  —  envisaged  as  apart  from  the 
personal  ‘self’  or  centre  of  consciousness.1  I  do 
not  mean  to  assert  that  the  distinction  above  in¬ 
dicated  between  7rpocrco7ro^  (persona)  and  viroaracns 
was  consciously  present  to  the  minds  of  those  who 
framed  the  Chalcedonian  formula,  for  it  was  not. 
None  the  less,  this  distinction  lay  implicitly  in  the 
terms  themselves,  and  was  bound  to  be  developed 
sooner  or  later.  Moreover,  it  is  to  be  observed  in 
this  connection  that  this  distinction  between  ‘proso- 

differentia  naturarum  propter  unitionem,  magisque  salva  proprie- 
tate  utriusque  naturae,  et  in  unam  personam  atque  subsistentiam 
concurrente. ...”  Note  the  word  “  subsistentia  ”  here  employed 
in  place  of  “substantia.” 

1  Of  course  the  decree  of  the  Council  recognizes  the  fact  that 
within  the  human  ‘nature’  of  our  Lord  is  included  a  physical 
body  (crwjua)  as  well  as  a  ‘rational  soul’  (Nvxv  X071/07). 


THE  INCARNATION 


121 


pon’  and  ‘hypostasis’  is  not  precisely  the  same 
as  the  distinction  drawn  in  the  Symbolum  Quicunque 
between  ‘person’  and  ‘substance.’  For  in  the 
‘Athanasian’  Creed  ‘substance’  (substantia)  is 
relatively  abstract;  it  is  conceived  as  antithetical 
to  or  over  against  the  ‘person.’  Whereas  in  the 
Chalcedonian  formula  virocrTCKns  includes  ‘person¬ 
ality’;  it  represents,  as  has  been  said,  the  concrete, 
personal  being,  in  which,  indeed,  the  irpoacoirov 
( persona  in  the  stricter  sense)  subsists  as  an  element. 

Here  we  must  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the 
Greek  theology  of  the  Incarnation  advances  beyond 
the  stage  of  development  which  that  theology  had 
reached  in  its  Trinitarianism;  that  is  to  say,  it 
advances  (doubtless  through  the  help  and  guidance 
of  the  Western  Church,  as  embodied  in  the  person 
of  Leo,  Bishop  of  Rome)  to  the  recognition  of  the 
distinction  between  the  personal  ‘self’  (indicated 
by  the  word  ‘prosopon’)  and  the  (impersonal) 
‘nature.’  But  it  is  most  important  to  observe 
that  the  ‘Hypostasis’  or  Divine,  incarnate  Person 
of  Christ  embraces  both  ‘prosopon’  and  ‘natura.’ 
The  Eternal  Word,  by  virtue  of  His  assumption 
of  our  human  ‘nature,’ — i.e.  of  humanity  in  its 
impersonal  form,  —  has  thereby  become  possessed 
of  a  creaturely  instrument  or  organ  through  which 
He  is  enabled  henceforward  humanly  to  function,  — 
humanly  to  experience,  to  enjoy  and  to  suffer. 
He  who  was  originally  possessed  of  a  complete  and 
integral  Divine  nature,  with  its  several  faculties  of 


122 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


knowing,  feeling,  willing  and  the  like,  has  now,  by 
virtue  of  His  incarnation,  become  possessed  of  a 
humanity  with  parallel  —  though  human  and  finite 
—  faculties  of  knowing,  feeling  and  willing.  In 
consequence,  the  Incarnate  Son  can  and  does 
humanly  feel,  know  and  will.  He  has  suffered  in 
the  flesh,  —  humanly  suffered  and  humanly  died. 
He  has  perceived  and  apprehended  as  Man,  with  a 
finite,  human  intelligence.  He,  the  one  Christ, 
does  in  fact  possess  two  wills,  —  the  human  and 
the  Divine,  —  and  two  distinct  modes  of  operation 
(evepyeLcu)  corresponding  therewith.  It  is  to  St. 
John  Damascene  (d.  about  760  a.d.)  that  the 
Church  is  indebted  for  the  full  and  complete  state¬ 
ment  of  the  Christological  doctrine.  “In  a  remark¬ 
able  passage”  (De  orth.  Fid.  iii.  19)  John  even 
“ascribes  reflective  self-consciousness  to  the  human 
spirit  of  Christ.” 1  On  the  whole,  however,  the 
tendency  of  Greek  Christology  is  to  regard  the 
humanity  of  the  God-man  as  virtually  a  ‘  property , 
or  function  of  His  Divine  Person;  the  real,  personal 
subsistence  (hypostasis)  is  that  of  the  Divine  Son 
or  Logos,  by  whom  the  humanity  has  been  assumed. 
It  is  to  be  observed,  moreover,  that,  according  to 
the  Chalcedonian  definition,  there  is  no  proper 
communication  of  the  distinctive  attributes  or  qual¬ 
ities  of  the  one  nature  to  the  other;  such  an  inter¬ 
pretation  would  at  once  break  down  the  distinction 
between  the  created  and  the  uncreated,  —  the 

1  Ottley,  The  Doctrine  of  the  Incarnation,  vol.  ii.,  p.  139. 


THE  INCARNATION 


123 


human  and  the  Divine.  The  two  natures  remain 
forever  distinct  from  each  other,  while  yet  united 
inseparably  in  the  one  Person  of  the  God-man. 
At  the  same  time,  from  the  Greek  point  of  view, 
the  cases  of  the  Divine  and  the  human  Natures’ 
in  Christ  are  not  regarded  as  strictly  parallel.  The 
Divine  ‘ nature’  in  our  Lord  is  in  reality  comprised 
within  His  Divine  ‘Hypostasis’;  it  is,  accurately 
speaking,  to  be  distinguished  only  from  the  (Divine) 
‘prosopon’  (‘ person’  in  the  strict  or  limited  sense) 
in  Him.  The  human  ‘nature,’  on  the  other  hand, 
is  an  element  within  the  composite  Person  of  the 
God-man;  it  coheres  with  the  one  Divine  Hypos¬ 
tasis,  finding  therein  its  personal  centre,  and,  — 
we  might  almost  add,  —  its  essence  or  ground  of 
being.  The  result  of  such  a  conception,  if  un¬ 
balanced  by  other  considerations,  can  hardly  fail 
to  be  that  the  humanity  of  our  Lord,  in  contrast 
with  His  overpowering  Divinity,  becomes  something 
rather  pale  and  lifeless.  The  Greek  Christology,  — 
indeed,  the  Christology  of  Greek  and  Roman 
Catholicism  alike,  —  shows  a  marked  tendency  to 
interpret  the  humanity  of  our  Lord  as  merely  the 
garment  or  vesture  with  which  the  Divine  Christ 
is  clothed.  He  is  a  God  who  wears  the  garb  and 
speaks  in  the  accents  of  a  Man.  Greek  Orthodoxy 
is  leavened  throughout  by  the  teaching  of  St. 
Cyril  (Archbishop  of  Alexandria  A.D.  412-444),  her 
great  champion  against  Nestorius.  St.  Cyril  s 
characteristic  formula  was  h'lol  4>v<ns  rod  A67 ov 


124 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


creaapKcoiJihrj,  “(There  is)  but  one  incarnate  nature 
of  the  Logos.”  The  two  ‘natures’  coalesce  into  one 
‘hypostasis’  so  as  in  effect  to  become  but  one,  and 
that,  the  nature  of  the  Incarnate  Word.  This  is 
virtually  to  construe  the  humanity  of  Jesus  Christ 
as  function,  quality  or  instrument  of  that  Divine 
Person  who  has  been  “made  man.”  According 
to  the  teaching  of  John  Damascene,  “  ‘The  Logos 
alone  controls  by  His  will  the  operation  of  the 
humanity  which’  was  moved  in  accordance  with 
its  constitution  (</>u<us)  at  the  will  of  the  Logos. 
Practically,  therefore,  the  human  nature  loses  its 
independence;  the  Logos  allowing  it  economically 
to  suffer  and  to  fulfil  its  proper  functions,  in  order 
that  by  means  of  its  actual  works  the  reality  of  the 
nature  might  be  ensured.  Thus  in  the  last  resort 
there  is  one  determinant  will,  —  that  of  the  one 
Person  in  His  Divine  nature.”  1  It  seems  difficult 
to  deny  that  there  runs  throughout  the  teaching 
of  Cyril  a  vein  of  practical  monophysitism.  We 
may  perhaps  sum  up  the  doctrine  in  these  words;  — 
In  the  Incarnate  Son  God  and  man  are  one;  and 
God  is  the  One.  This  may  be  expressed  by  saying 
that  in  the  Christology  of  the  Greek  Church  the 
balance  always  heavily  inclines  to  the  side  of 
Divinity.2 

1  Ottley,  The  Doctrine  of  the  Incarnation,  vol.  ii.  p.  143. 

2  In  the  Churches  known  as  East  Syrian,  Armenian  and  Nes- 
torian  (the  “  separated  Churches  of  the  East”)  the  attempt  is  made 
to  hold  the  scales  with  an  even  hand,  as  regards  the  Divine  and 
human  natures  of  Christ.  To  quote  from  the  Report  of  the 


THE  INCARNATION 


125 


In  the  Western  Church,  on  the  other  hand,  there 
has  always  been  the  effort  to  maintain  the  scales 
more  nearly  upon  a  level,  —  in  other  words,  to 

Committee  of  the  Lambeth  Conference  of  1920  on  the  Separated 
Churches  of  the  East:  —  “A  careful  examination  of  the  East 
Syrian  voluminous  liturgical  books  (has  been  made)  with  the 
result  that  it  is  seen  that  they  contain  much  that  is  incompatible 
with  real  Nestorianism,  together  with  some  things  that  might  be 
interpreted  either  in  an  orthodox  or  in  a  Nestorian  sense;  it  is 
suggested  that  the  latter  must  be  judged  by  the  former.  The 
watchword  Theotokos  is  absent  from  their  service  books,  and 
in  one  place  is  repudiated;  on  the  other  hand,  its  equivalent  in 
other  words  is  several  times  found,  and  strong  instances  of  the 
language  known  as  communicatio  idiomatum  occur.  One  phrase 
which  has  caused  some  perplexity  is  that  which  asserts  that  there 
are  in  Christ  one  parsopa  (irpoacoTrou),  two  Qnome,  and  two  natures. 
The  word  Qnoma  is  equivalent  to  ‘hypostasis,’  and  if  used  in  the 
later  sense  of  that  word,  i.e.,  as  meaning  ‘person,’  it  would 
imply  real  Nestorianism;  but  research  has  made  it  plain  that  it  is 
used  in  the  earlier  sense  of  ‘hypostasis,’  namely,  ‘substance,’ 
and  this  makes  the  phrase,  if  redundant,  at  least  perfectly  ortho¬ 
dox.  It  should  be  added  that  the  East  Syrians  accept  the  decrees 
of  Chalcedon,  while  rejecting  those  of  Ephesus.”  * 

May  it  be  permitted  to  the  present  writer  to  say  that  in  his 
judgment  the  phrase  “two  Qnome  (hypostases),”  if  it  be  trans¬ 
lated  “two  personal  substances,”  is  not  only  in  harmony  with 
orthodox  teaching,  but  is  also  distinctly  helpful  in  bringing  out 
the  fuller  Christological  doctrine;  for  these  two  “personal  sub¬ 
stances  or  hypostases”  find  in  the  one  “prosopon”  (‘person’  in 
the  strict  sense)  their  common  centre  and  metaphysical  point  of 
union,  apart  from  which  neither  one  of  them  would  be  a  personal 
substance  or  hypostasis  at  all.  The  two  ‘hypostases’  in  Christ 
are  not,  therefore,  two  distinct  ‘persons’  or  egos  (which  would 
be  “Nestorianism”);  they  are  not  metaphysically  separated, 
inasmuch  as  they  find  their  common  centre  of  unity  in  the  one 
‘prosopon’  or  ‘Person’  of  Christ. 


*  Lambeth  Conference  Report,  pp.  i49>  15° 


126 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


interpret  the  relation  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ 
to  His  one  Person  as  a  strictly  parallel  relation.  In 
the  teaching  of  St.  Leo,  with  its  balanced  state¬ 
ment  of  the  two  complementary  natures,  —  Divine 
and  human,  —  we  have  at  least  the  suggestion  of  a 
‘persona’  which  is  ‘neutral’  in  the  sense  that  it  is 
the  common  meeting-point  and  centre  of  two 
distinct  and  integral  natures,  —  the  human  and 
the  Divine.  But  it  must  be  confessed  that  in  both 
Greek  and  Latin  Catholicism  the  humanity  of  the 
Virgin  Mary  and  of  the  saints  has  obscured  the 
Manhood  of  the  Saviour  from  the  age  of  the 
General  Councils  down  through  the  Reformation 
period,  and  even  to  the  present  time.  Mediaeval 
Catholicism  has  never  been  able  to  do  full  justice 
to  our  Lord’s  humanity.  Moreover,  the  failure 
clearly  to  discriminate  between  the  ‘abstract’  and 
the  ‘concrete’  meanings  of  ‘person’  (i.e.,  between 
what  we  have  ventured  to  designate  as  pl  and  p 2) 
always  stood  as  a  barrier  in  the  way  of  a  satisfactc  y 
solution  of  the  Christological  problem.  The  School¬ 
men  of  the  West  wanted  to  deal  with  the  ‘persona,’ 
but  were  unable  to  free  themselves  from  the  con¬ 
ception  of  the  ‘hypostasis’;  they  failed  to  see  that 
the  idea  of  ‘persona’  can  be  reached  only  on  con¬ 
dition  that  it  be  recognized  as  ‘  non- substantial?  — 
non-substantial,  yet  at  the  same  time  objectively 
real  and  existent.  The  same  confusion  of  thought 
which  affected  Trinitarianism  also  affected  the 
Chris tology  of  that  period.  As  regards  the  doc- 


THE  INCARNATION 


127 


trine  of  the  Incarnation,  one  must  recognize  once 
for  all  the  fact  that  it  is  not  sufficient  to  speak 
of  the  union  of  the  two  natures  in  the  Person 
of  Christ  as  a  hypostatic  union;  it  is  a  personal 
union  which  is  here  in  question. 

In  dealing  with  the  problem  of  our  Lord’s  Person, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  great  fact  and  truth  of  the 
Holy  Trinity,  we  must  frankly  recognize  from  the 
very  first  that  what  is  revealed  to  us  in  the  New 
Testament  record  leads  us  beyond  the  confines  of 
our  limited  human  experience.  We  cannot  imagine 
or  realize  what  a  consciousness  would  be  which  is  at 
one  and  the  same  time  the  consciousness  of  God  and 
of  man.  We  fall  back  upon  our  two  factors  of  ‘sub¬ 
stance’  and  of  ‘person,’  —  of  the  ‘ground’  as  over 
against  the  ‘means’  or  ‘instrument’  of  conscious¬ 
ness.1  But  in  this  case  it  is  the  factor  of  ‘substance’ 
which  we  have  to  multiply  by  two.  For  the  con¬ 
sciousness  of  the  God-man  has  a  twofold  ‘ground’ 
or  basis,  —  in  the  Divine  and  in  the  human  nature. 
Two  distinct  natures,  that  is,  exist  as  it  were 
side  by  side  in  the  distinct  reality  and  perfect  in¬ 
tegrity  of  each.  In  the  language  of  Chalcedon,  the 
Divinity  and  the  humanity  coexist  in  the  Person 
of  Christ  “without  confusion  or  change;  without 
division  or  separation”;  for  the  two  ‘natures’ 
have  but  one  and  the  same  personal  ego  or  centre 
of  consciousness.  Consequently,  in  the  case  of  the 
Incarnate  Son,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Triune  Godhead 

1  See  pp.  79-82  above. 


128 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


itself,  one  is  unable  to  speak  of  a  consciousness 
which  is  either  strictly  unitary  or  absolutely  plural. 
The  category  of  number,  like  all  other  categories 
of  human  thought,  is  unable  adequately  to  inter¬ 
pret  the  Being  and  Personality  of  God. 

The  persistent  ambiguity  in  the  meaning  of 
‘persona’  is  witnessed  to  by  the  ever-renewed  dis¬ 
cussions  over  the  question  as  to  whether  the  hu¬ 
manity  of  Christ  is  to  be  regarded  as  ‘personal’ 
or  as  ‘impersonal.’  It  is  agreed  by  all  orthodox 
Christians  that  the  manhood  which  our  Lord  as¬ 
sumed  in  the  womb  of  the  Virgin  Mary  was,  prior 
to  its  assumption  by  Him,  impersonal ,  —  i.e., 
having  no  independent  personal  ‘self’  or  ego  of  its 
own.  Were  this  not  the  case,  we  should  be  dealing 
with  two  Persons,  not  with  One.  The  human  Jesus 
would  be  existing  side  by  side  with  the  Divine 
Logos  or  Son.  Such  an  interpretation  is  obviously 
impossible;  it  would  destroy  the  whole  meaning 
of  the  Incarnation;  it  would,  in  fact,  subvert  our 
faith  in  Christ.  But  the  question  with  which  we 
are  now  dealing  has  to  do  with  the  humanity  of 
our  Lord  as  it  exists  in  Him  in  consequence  of  the 
Incarnation.  The  point  at  issue  is  this :  —  Is  or  is 
not  our  Lord  personally  Man?  It  is  admitted  by 
all  orthodox  Christians  that  Jesus  Christ  is  per¬ 
sonally  God,  —  the  Son  of  God;  —  but  there  is 
still  a  divergence  of  opinion  as  to  whether  He  is  to 
be  regarded  as  personally  Man.  Here  it  is  not,  as 
so  many  suppose,  a  case  of  “ either  .  .  .  or”;  it  is 


THE  INCARNATION 


129 


rather,  I  am  persuaded,  a  case  of  “ both  .  .  .  and  .”  I 
deny  that  these  two  alternatives  exclude  each  other. 
Let  me  not  be  understood  as  by  any  means  setting 
aside  the  time-honored  interpretation  of  our  Lord’s 
manhood  as  a  garment  or  vesture  which  the  Divine 
Logos  has  assumed;  as  the  instrument  or  organ 
which  the  Divine  Son  employs  in  order  to  manifest 
Himself  and  enter  into  human  relations  with  us. 
I  believe  that  this  interpretation  is  a  true  one; 
but  I  do  not  believe  that  it  is  the  only  one,  that  it 
sums  up  the  whole  truth  of  the  matter,  or  that  it 
by  itself  does  justice  to  all  of  the  Scriptural  evi¬ 
dence.  We  must  not  allow  our  theology  to  cramp 
or  warp  our  Scriptural  exegesis.  To  construe  our 
Lord’s  manhood  as  in  no  sense  personal  does  seem 
to  imperil  the  full  truth  of  His  humanity.  Was 
not  Jesus  Christ,  then,  a  Man?  —  not,  indeed,  a 
mere  creature,  —  (for  even  as  Man  He  is  more  than 
man),  —  but  was  He,  on  the  other  hand,  less  than 
man?  Can  we  maintain  that  a  purely  impersonal 
human  ‘nature’  constitutes  a  complete  man?  And 
was  not  our  Lord  in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  word 
a  Man,  —  the  human  Jesus  as  well  as  the  Divine 
and  eternal  Son?  1  In  seeking  to  maintain  that  He 
is  more  than  man,  let  us  beware  lest  either  a  faulty 
logic  or  a  mistaken  devotion  lead  us  to  interpret 
Him  to  ourselves  as  in  any  wise  less  than  man.  An 
incomplete  Manhood  on  the  part  of  Christ  would 
mean  an  incomplete  Incarnation.  The  true  solution 

1  See  above,  pp.  24-26. 


13° 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


of  the  problem  appears  to  be  that  the  Manhood  of 
Jesus  Christ  does  in  fact  possess  a  personal  ‘self’ 
or  centre  of  consciousness  and  activity;  but  that 
personal  ‘self’  or  centre  is  at  the  same  time  the 
personal  Ego  of  the  Divine  Logos,  —  the  eternal 
Son  of  GOD.1 

In  Dante’s  sublime  vision,  in  which  the  theology 
of  the  Mediaeval  period  finds  its  supreme  imagina¬ 
tive  expression,  it  is  the  ‘hypostatic  union’  that  is 
envisaged;  the  ‘Circle’  of  Divinity  is  seen  “within 
itself,  of  its  own  very  colour”  as  “painted  with  our 
(human)  effigy.”  2  Here  the  humanity  —  the  human 
“effigy”  —  still  remains  but  as  the  superficies;  —  the 
real,  characteristic  substance  is  the  Divine.  Yet 
the  poet  is  not  satisfied ;  —  his  mind  still  labors  for 
a  clearer  conception,  but  is  unable  of  itself  to  attain 
it,3  until,  in  “a  flash  of  lightning”  from  above, 
the  truth  is  revealed.  But  what  is  that  ultimate 
fact  which  the  poet-sage  claims  to  have  had  re¬ 
vealed  to  him?  Had  Dante  really  seen  it  (we  may 
ask)  could  he  not  have  described  it  ?  —  he  whose 

1  A  later  Greek  theologian,  Euthymius  Zigabenus  (d.  circ.  iii8), 
states  that  the  human  nature  of  Christ  is  neither  awn oararos  nor 
idiovjrScTTaTos,  but  hvTrdcrraTos;  —  i.e.,  is  neither  without  personal 
subsistence  nor  possessed  of  a  personal  subsistence  of  its  own; 
it  shares  in  personal  being  or  subsistence  through  its  union  with 
the  Divine  Logos  or  Son.  See  Ottley,  The  Incarnation,  ii.,  p.  125. 

2  “  Dentro  da  se  del  suo  colore  stesso, 

Mi  parve  pinta  della  nostra  effigie.” 

Paradiso  XXXIII.  130,  131. 

3  “Ma  non  eran  da  cio  le  proprie  penne.” 

Ibid.  1.  139. 


THE  INCARNATION 


131 

descriptive  powers  were  certainly  second  to  those 
of  no  other  poet  who  ever  wrote.  Is  it  not  that 
the  ultimate  truth  is  in  fact  almost  too  simple  for 
words?  that  this  ultimate  reality  is  to  be  envisaged 
just  as  a  point ,  —  something  having  reality  and 
position,  but  no  dimensions,  —  the  common  centre 
of  two  distinct  figures.  Had  the  poet  adhered  to 
the  geometrical  method  with  which  he  began,  the 
solution  might  have  been  reached.  That  solution 
is  to  be  found  in  two  concentric  circles,  —  one  of 
finite,  the  other  of  infinite  radius;  the  persona  is 
the  common  centre  in  which  the  Divine  and  human 
natures  find  their  ultimate  point  of  union. 

But  after  all,  as  we  have  already  seen  in  our  study 
of  the  Triune  personality  of  God,1  a  more  adequate 
symbol  of  personality  is  to  be  found  in  a  different 
field  from  that  of  pure  mathematics.  It  is  the 
flame  which  by  its  subtle  and  lambent  movement, 
by  its  quick  and  vital  activity,  affords  the  most 
adequate  image  of  personality.  May  I  suggest  the 
following  as  an  illustration  of  the  fact  of  the  Incar¬ 
nation  which  has  appealed  to  me  for  many  years 
past.  Let  us  suppose  two  vessels,  one  of  them 
filled  with  oil,  the  other  with  alcohol.  Of  these 
two  substances,  one  —  the  oil  —  is  alight;  it  is 
burning  with  its  own  flame;  the  alcohol,  on  the 
other  hand,  is  not  as  yet  in  a  state  of  combustion. 
But  now  let  us  place  the  vessel  of  oil  side  by  side 
with  the  vessel  of  alcohol,  so  that  the  latter  sub- 

1  See  above,  pp.  82-84. 


132 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


stance  is  kindled  by  the  former.  Henceforward, 
then,  the  two  will  burn  with  a  common  flame.  The 
application  is  obvious.  These  two  substances  cor¬ 
respond  with  the  two  ‘natures’  in  our  Lord.  The 
oil,  originally  alight,  answers  to  the  eternal  Divine 
nature  of  the  Logos,  as  possessed  of  its  own  proper 
‘personality.’  The  alcohol,  originally  unlighted, 
answers  to  the  human  nature,  originally  impersonal, 
which  the  Divine  Word,  by  the  act  of  incarnation, 
took  into  union  with  Himself.  The  flame  is  the 
ultimate  selfhood  or  ‘person.’  But  yet  it  is  not  that 
the  Eternal  Word  merely  took  flesh;  —  He  became 
flesh,1  while  yet  in  Himself  remaining  what  He  was 
before.  That  is  to  say,  —  In  the  act  of  becoming 
incarnate,  the  Divine  Logos  Himself,  by  entering 
into  a  new  personal  and  metaphysical  relation,  to 
that  extent  became  modified.  From  henceforward, 
the  Divine  Son  or  Logos  sustains  a  relation  of 
unspeakable  intimacy,  —  nay,  of  vital  union,  —  with 
that  human  nature  which  He  has  now  assumed. 
The  unchangeable  and  eternal  Logos  has  undergone 
a  change.  And  yet  it  remains  true  that  He  is  One, 
—  “one,  not  by  conversion  of  the  Godhead  into 
flesh,  but  by  taking  of  the  Manhood  into  God. 
One  altogether;  not  by  confusion  of  substance, 
but  by  unity  of  Person.  For  as  the  reasonable  soul 
and  flesh  is  one  man,  so  God  and  Man  is  one 
Christ.” 2  It  was  the  impersonal  human  nature, 

1  6  Aoyos  aapi ~  tyevero ,  St.  John  i.  14. 

2  The  ‘Athanasian’  Creed. 


THE  INCARNATION 


133 


including  a  true  body  and  a  rational  soul,  which 
was  assumed  into  union  with  the  eternal  Logos  or 
Son  of  God.  But  in  consequence  of  that  union 
the  humanity  itself,  originally  and  by  itself  imper¬ 
sonal,  has  now  forever  become  personalized.  Christ 
is  not  only  flesh;  He  is  Man;  and  to  be  a  man 
connotes  something  more  than  unconscious  or  im¬ 
personal  manhood.  Christ  is  the  Man;  —  the  pat¬ 
tern  and  archetype  of  perfect  and  integral  manhood. 
By  attributing  to  our  Lord  human  personality,  we 
simply  mean  to  aflirm  that  He  is  conscious  of  Him¬ 
self  as  Man, — not  only  as  GOD  or  as  the  Divine 
Son.  He  knows  Himself  to  be  One  of  us,  while  at 
the  same  time  He  is  immeasurably  and  eternally 
above  us. 

One  question  yet  remains;  and  that  is,  in  regard 
to  this  very  personal  ‘self’  of  the  Divine  Son,  who 
is  at  the  same  time  the  human  Jesus.  Is  that 
personal  ‘self’  —  the  inmost  clvtos  in  Him  —  to  be 
described  as  Divine  or  as  human?  Our  answer  to 
this  question  is  as  follows :  —  If  we  are  to  describe 
the  personal  ‘self’  from  or  with  reference  to  the 
‘  consciousness  ’  of  which  it  is  the  metaphysical 
centre,  then  the  ‘  personality  ’  of  the  God-man  will 
be  recognized  as  Divine  in  so  far  as  it  is  possessed 
of  a  Divine  .consciousness,  and  human  in  so  far  as 
it  is  possessed  of  a  human  consciousness.  That  is 
to  say,  —  the  ‘ personality’  is  construed  as  in  itself, 
so  to  speak,  neuter;  —  i.e.,  as  equally  Divine  or 
human  according  as  it  is  conceived  as  united  with 


134 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


the  Divine  or  with  the  human  nature.  But  from 
another  (which  is,  indeed,  the  ultimate)  point  of 
view,  —  that  personal  ‘  self  ’  of  our  Lord  being  un¬ 
created  and  eternal  (for  it  is  the  very  persona  of 
the  Divine  Son, — yes,  of  God  Himself,  as  Son)  — 
that  personal  ‘Self’  of  our  Lord,  being,  as  we  have 
said,  both  eternal  and  uncreated,  is  Divine,  not 
human.  For  whatever  is  known  to  be  eternal  is 
ipso  facto  recognized  as  Divine.  To  sum  up,  then; 

—  The  personality  of  our  Lord,  in  itself  Divine, 
is  human  by  virtue  of  its  relation  to  that  human 
nature  with  which  it  is  inseparably  united.  Ab¬ 
solutely,  He  is  a  Person  Divine;  relatively,  He  is  a 
Person  human.1 

And  this  leads  to  the  final  and  practical  question, 

—  (for  as  our  theology  takes  its  rise  in  Christian 
experience,  so  it  must  find  its  issue  and  its  appli¬ 
cation  in  Christian  life  and  practice)  —  Is  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  as  Man,  —  i.e.,  in  His  Manhood,  — 
the  Object  of  religious  worship?  Is  prayer  to  be 
addressed  to  Him  as  the  Man  Christ  Jesus?  Let 
it  be  remembered  that  from  this  point  of  view  we 
are  thinking  of  our  Lord  not  in  His  Divinity  or  in 
His  Godhead,  but  as  Son  of  Man.  Is  He,  in  His 
sacred  Manhood,  the  Object  of  religious  veneration 

1  “Christ  is  a  Person  both  divine  and  human;  howbeit  not 
therefore  two  persons  in  one,  neither  both  these  in  one  sense; 
but  a  person  divine  because  he  is  personally  the  Son  of  God, 
human”  (i.e.,  a  person  human)  “  because  he  hath  really  the 
nature  of  the  children  of  men.” 

Hooker,  Eccles.  Pol.  Bk.  V.  lii. 


THE  INCARNATION 


135 


and  worship?  It  is  with  the  consideration  of  this 
point,  which  bears  such  central  and  vital  signifi¬ 
cance  for  Christian  living,  that  we  may  well  con¬ 
clude  this  brief  study  of  the  theology  of  the  Person 
of  Christ. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  answer  to  the 
question  as  just  stated  must  be  in  the  affirmative. 
Our  Lord,  even  as  Man,  is  rightly  to  be  worshipped, 
inasmuch  as  the  personal  ‘Self’  in  Him,  —  His 
inmost  a vtos,  —  is  truly  Divine.  It  is  this  Divine 
and  eternal  element  in  Him  which  once  for  all 
removes  the  worship  of  Jesus  from  the  category  of 
creature- worship.  There  is  here  no  parallel  to  the 
worship  of  the  Virgin  Mary  and  of  the  saints  as 
practiced  in  the  Roman  or  Greek  communions;  in¬ 
deed,  such  worship  must  necessarily  obscure  the  full 
recognition  of  the  Manhood  of  Jesus  Christ  as  the 
one  Mediator  between  God  and  man.  The  worship 
of  Mary  and  of  the  saints  for  centuries  operated 
and  still  operates  over  wide  sections  of  Christendom 
as  a  bar  to  the  healthful  recognition  of  our  Lord’s 
full  and  complete  humanity.  Nor  can  the  venera¬ 
tion  of  the  Sacrament  of  Christ’s  Body  take  the 
place  of  the  worship  of  the  concrete  and  living 
Christ  Himself.  The  Manhood  of  Jesus  Christ  is 
absolutely  unique;  having  its  centre  of  personal 
subsistence  in  the  realm  of  the  uncreated  and  the 
eternal.  Such  a  Being,  and  such  a  Being  alone  can 
rightfully  claim  our  worship;  to  Him  alone  may 
we  address  our  prayers.  Salvation  is  ascribed  “to 


136 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


our  God  which  sitteth  upon  the  throne,  and  unto 
the  Lamb.” 1  The  worship  of  Jesus  is  inseparable 
from  the  worship  which  is  addressed  to  Almighty 
GOD  Himself. 

But  it  is  never  to  be  forgotten  that  our  Lord  as 
Man  is  the  Object  not  of  religious  veneration  alone; 
He  is  at  the  same  time  our  human  Companion  and 
Friend.  This  He  was  to  His  disciples  in  the  days 
of  His  sojourn  here  on  earth;  can  He  be  less  than 
this  to  us  to-day  or  in  the  ages  to  come?  Is  He 
not  Jesus  Christ  “the  Same,  yesterday  and  to-day 
and  forever”  in  the  brotherly  bond  of  human  con¬ 
fidence  and  affection?  In  what  He  is,  even  more 
than  in  what  He  says  or  in  what  He  has  done 
(incalculably  precious  as  are  His  saving  word  and 
work  on  our  behalf) ,  —  in  what  He  is,  —  in  the 
truth  and  reality  of  His  Being  we  recognize  once 
for  all  the  Divine-human  Manifestation  of  per¬ 
sonality;  —  of  what  personality  means  and  of  what 
it  is. 


1  Rev.  vii.  10. 


CHAPTER  V 


Human  Personality  and  Justification  by 

Faith 

In  the  last  two  chapters  we  have  been  considering 
personality  in  its  metaphysical  aspect;  the  New 
Testament  conception  of  Justification  brings  before 
us  the  moral  aspects  of  personality.  “How  shall 
man  be  just  with  God?”  This  great  question  is 
dealt  with  in  the  New  Testament  by  two  apostles; 
—  by  St.  Paul  in  the  way  of  elaborate  argument  and 
analysis,  and  by  St.  James  in  the  way  of  terse, 
axiomatic  moral  statement.  These  are  the  only 
New  Testament  writers  who  may  be  said  to  have 
any  doctrine  of  justification  as  such.  It  is,  therefore, 
to  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  and  to  the  brief  Letter 
of  St.  James  that  we  must  turn  for  our  study  of 
Justification  in  its  relation  to  human  personality. 
The  subject  is  one  of  vital  importance  in  any  con¬ 
sideration  of  personality,  for  ‘justification’  means 
nothing  else  than  the  sentence  of  moral  appraisal 
and  judgment  of  worth  which  Almighty  God,  in 
His  court  of  supreme  and  ultimate  appeal,  places 
upon  human  character  and  upon  the  individual 
human  life. 

The  justification  of  man  is  a  matter  of  such  vital 

137 


138 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


and  fundamental  importance  that  it  can  never  fail 
to  retain  a  perennial  interest  for  the  spiritual  mind. 
One  of  the  causes  with  which  the  name  of  St.  Paul 
will  forever  be  identified  is  his  gospel  of  “  justifica¬ 
tion  by  faith”;  St.  James,  on  the  other  hand,  is 
recognized  as  the  proponent  of  “justification  by 
works.”  Does  this  antithesis  amount  to  a  hopeless 
contradiction?  or  is  there  some  fair  and  just  method 
of  harmonizing  the  respective  teachings  of  the  two 
Apostles?  and,  if  so,  what  is  that  method?  The 
inquiry  is  still  worth  while  to-day,  even  though  so 
many  have  undertaken  it  ever  since  the  days  of 
Luther  and  Calvin. 


i 

JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH  ONLY,  OR  BY  FAITH 

AND  WORKS? 

Man’s  justification  ‘by  faith  only’  has  been  held 
in  Protestant  circles  as  the  very  “arti cuius  stantis 
aut  cadentis  ecclesiae.”  For  example,  the  Anglican 
Article  of  Religion  entitled  “Of  the  Justification 
of  Man”  states  it  as  “a  most  wholesome  doctrine” 
as  well  as  one  “very  full  of  comfort”  “that  we  are 
justified  by  faith  only”  ( sola  fide).  St.  Paul’s 
statement  (in  Romans  iii.  28)  that  “man  is  justi¬ 
fied  by  faith,  apart  from  works  of  law”  had  been 
sharpened  and  pointed  by  Luther  by  the  insertion 
of  the  word  allein,  so  as  to  read:  “dass  der  Mensch 
gerecht  werde  ohne  des  Gesetzes  Werke,  allein 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  JUSTIFICATION 


139 


durch  den  Glauben,” —  “that  man  is  justified 
without  works  of  the  law,  only  through  faith.”  On 
the  other  hand,  men  have  always  quoted,  and  no 
doubt  will  always  continue  to  quote  that  equally 
explicit  statement  of  St.  James  (ch.  ii.  24),  “Ye 
see  then,  how  that  by  works  a  man  is  justified,  and 
not  only  by  faith”  (/cal  ovk  e k  irLareo^s  iiovov).  The 
word  4 only,’  be  it  noted,  is  employed  not  by  St. 
Paul,  but  by  St.  James. 

While  there  is,  no  doubt,  an  antithesis  between 
the  teaching  of  the  two  Apostles,  Christian  faith 
can  never  rest  satisfied  in  the  thought  that  there  is 
any  real  contradiction.  Surely  the  Divine  Spirit 
who  inspired  both  St.  James  and  St.  Paul  cannot 
have  contradicted  Himself,  for,  as  God,  “He  abideth 
faithful;  he  cannot  deny  himself”  (II.  Tim.  ii.  13). 
Christian  thought  must  seek  a  synthesis  which, 
while  doing  full  justice  to  the  teaching  of  St.  James 
on  the  one  side  and  to  that  of  St.  Paul  on  the 
other,  shall  yet  exhibit  the  mind  of  the  Spirit  as  in 
harmony  with  itself  throughout.  One  short  and 
easy  method  of  solution  has  indeed  been  offered; 
i.e.,  that  St.  James  is  merely  speaking  of  a  justi¬ 
fication  before  man  ( foro  humano )  while  St.  Paul 
refers,  of  course,  to  our  justification  in  the  presence 
of  God  (foro  Divino).  But  such  an  explanation 
strikes  one  as  more  ingenious  than  satisfying;  and 
certainly  there  appears  to  be  no  hint  of  it  in  the 
Scripture  context.  In  each  case,  “it  is  God  that 
justifieth”;  whether  it  were  when  “Abraham  be- 


140 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


lieved  God,  and  he  reckoned  it  unto  him  for  right¬ 
eousness, ”  or  when  the  same  Abraham  “had  offered 
Isaac  his  son  upon  the  altar.”  And  yet  this  ex¬ 
planation,  untenable  though  it  may  be,  at  least 
serves  to  point  out  the  direction  in  which  the  true 
solution  of  our  problem  is  to  be  sought.  For  there 
is,  indeed,  a  difference  and  a  most  important  differ¬ 
ence  between  the  two  Apostles  in  their  conception 
of  what  justification  is,  - —  of  wherein  it  consists. 
This  will  at  once  become  obvious  from  the  fact 
that  while  the  forgiveness  of  sins  is  so  great  and  vital 
a  part  of  St.  Paul’s  gospel,  as  it  was  of  his  spiritual 
experience,  in  the  Epistle  of  St.  James,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  Divine  forgiveness  of  human  sin 
finds  comparatively  scant  expression;  it  is  stated 
as  a  fact,  but  is  not  explained  or  related  as  a 
doctrine.  Only  in  one  place,  —  towards  the  end  of 
St.  James’  short  Epistle,  —  is  the  forgiveness  of 
sins  mentioned,  and  that  is  in  connection  with  the 
prayer  of  faith  for  the  restoration  of  the  sick: 
“And  the  Lord  shall  raise  him  up,  and  if  he  have 
committed  sins  (apaprlas)  they  shall  be  forgiven 
him.  Confess  therefore  your  transgressions  ( irapa - 
7rrdjpara)  one  to  another,  and  pray  one  for  another, 
that  ye  may  be  healed”  (ch.  v.  14-16).  In  this 
passage  the  forgiveness  of  sins  is  not  traced  back  to 
its  ground  in  the  sacrificial  death  of  Christ;  it  is 
merely  connected  with  the  healing  of  physical  dis¬ 
ease  by  “the  prayer  of  faith.”  Contrast  with  this 
the  wealth  of  St.  Paul’s  teaching  concerning  that 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  JUSTIFICATION 


141 


Divine  pardoning  love  which  God  so  “commended” 
in  the  fact  that  “while  we  were  yet  sinners  Christ 
died  for  us.”  The  forgiveness  of  sins  through  Christ 
and  for  Christ’s  sake  had  a  place  in  St.  Paul’s 
experience  which  seems  to  find  no  parallel  in 
the  experience  of  St.  James.  And  a  man’s  spiritual 
experience  is  bound  to  affect  his  theology;  the  two 
things  cannot  be  separated  from  one  another.  St. 
James  is  bound  to  look  at  justification  from  a 
different  viewpoint  from  that  of  St.  Paul.  We  shall 
have  occasion,  further  on,  to  point  out  another 
contrast,  equally  important,  which  will  serve  to 
emphasize  afresh  the  theological  limitations  of 
St.  James.  Nevertheless,  St.  James,  with  all  his 
limitations,  was  a  real  prophet,  and  one  whose 
witness  we  can  by  no  means  afford  to  ignore.  By 
his  blunt  statements  and  simple  illustrations,  — 
foreign  to  the  refinements  of  theology,  but  level 
with  the  capacity  of  the  average  untheological 
mind,  —  St.  James  has  in  fact  made  a  real  and  a 
most  valuable  contribution  to  the  rationale  of  justi¬ 
fication.  With  the  simple  statement,  —  “Ye  see 
that  by  works  a  man  is  justified,  and  not  only  by 
faith,”  —  he  leaves  the  matter;  but  in  doing  so  he 
has  laid  down  a  principle  of  vital  and  perennial 
importance  both  for  Christian  thought  and  for 
Christian  practice. 

We  may  bring  out  the  contrast  between  St.  Paul’s 
teaching  and  that  of  St.  James  as  follows:  —  St. 
Paul’s  conception  of  righteousness,  and,  by  conse- 


142 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


quence,  of  justification,  is  both  ‘negative5  and  ‘pos¬ 
itive.5  In  its  negative  aspect,  justification  consists 
in  God’s  pardon  or  ‘putting  away5  of  human  sin 
on  the  ground  of  the  propitiatory  death  of  Christ 
upon  the  cross.  In  its  positive  aspect,  justification 
consists  in  God’s  recognition  of  righteousness  in 
the  man  who  has  taken  the  proper  attitude  toward 
Him,  —  i.e.,  the  attitude  of  faith  in  Jesus  Christ. 
It  is  faith  which  is  “reckoned  to  a  man  for  right¬ 
eousness.”  Human  righteousness,  then,  exists  pri¬ 
marily  in  the  form  of  faith;  but  it  is  a  faith  which 
is  pregnant  with  all  graces  and  virtues;  it  is  a 
faith  which  “worketh  by  love.”  Justification  as 
‘negative5  and  as  ‘positive5  corresponds  to  right¬ 
eousness  in  its  twofold  aspect.  Negatively  righteous¬ 
ness  consists  in  the  absence  of  sin  through  its 
removal  by  the  sentence  of  Divine  forgiveness.  This 
at  the  same  time  is  accompanied  by  the  cleansing 
and  purifying  grace  of  God  within  the  heart. 
(The  use  of  the  word  ‘negative5  in  this  connection 
is  not  invidious;  it  is  merely  philosophical.)  Pos¬ 
itively  righteousness  consists  in  a  man’s  sustaining 
the  right  attitude  towards  God,  and  in  the  mani¬ 
festation  of  this  attitude  by  some  overt  indication 
of  obedience.  To  St.  Paul  the  great  manifestation 
of  human  obedience  is  no  other  than  faith.  The 
great  end  and  aim  of  St.  Paul’s  apostleship  was  to 
win  the  Gentiles  to  “the  obedience  of  faith” 
(Rom.  i.  5,  xvi.  26),  —  “to  make  the  Gentiles  obe¬ 
dient  (both)  by  word  and  deed”  (xv.  18).  Faith  is 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  JUSTIFICATION 


143 


the  very  spirit  and  life  of  obedience;  therefore  it  is 
faith  on  the  part  of  man  which  is  “  counted  for 
righteousness.” 

That  justification  means  to  St.  Paul  something 
more  than  forgiveness,  or  the  putting  away  of 
human  sin,  is  clearly  indicated  by  his  words  in 
Rom.  iv.  25,  where  our  Lord  is  said  to  have  been 
“ delivered  up  on  account  of  our  offences”  and  to 
have  been  “  raised  again  on  account  of  our  justi¬ 
fication.”  The  blessed  result  of  Christ’s  atoning 
death  is  that  our  sins  are  thereby  pardoned;  the 
no  less  blessed  result  of  His  glorious  resurrection  is 
that  we  are  included  within  the  scope  of  His  risen 
life,  so  as  to  be  made  sharers  in  the  status  of  Him 
who  is  the  acknowledged  and  all-righteous  Son  of 
God.  This  is  what  St.  Paul  means  by  ‘ justifica¬ 
tion  of  life’  (Rom.  v.  18) -1 

Now  in  marked  contrast  with  this  Pauline  the¬ 
ology  of  faith  and  forgiveness,  the  conception  of 
St.  James  is  simply  that  God  recognizes  —  not 
human  creeds  or  professions,  but  —  human  acts  of 
obedience;  —  and  that  His  “ justification”  is  con¬ 
ditioned  accordingly.  This  is  “justification”  in 
its  positive  and  pragmatic  rather  than  in  its  dis¬ 
tinctively  “evangelical”  aspect,  and  in  so  far 

St.  James’  doctrine  may  be  characterized  as  ‘moral’ 

% 

1  The  analysis  of  our  Lord’s  saving  work  as  including  both 
‘rectification/  —  i.e.,  satisfaction  for  sin,  —  and  also  positive 
meritum,  on  the  ground  of  which  He  is  entitled  to  a  reward  which 
He  may  share  with  His  redeemed,  is  brought  out  by  St.  Anselm 
in  his  “Cur  Deus  Homo?”  See  esp.  Bk.  H.  chapters  18  (b)  and  19. 


144 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


or  ‘ethical’  in  contrast  with  the  more  deeply 
spiritual  teaching  of  St.  Paul.  Yet  it  forms  a  most 
necessary  and  valuable  adjunct  to  the  Pauline  doc¬ 
trine,  and  one  with  which,  as  I  have  said,  we  may 
not  fail  to  reckon. 

The  contrast  between  the  respective  lines  of 
teaching  of  these  two  Apostles  is  even  more  strongly 
marked  by  the  fact  that  St.  Paul  actually  denies 
any  place  to  human  “works,”  —  i.e.,  in  the  form 
of  1  works  of  law ,’ —  in  the  matter  of  our  justification; 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  God  is  even  said  to 
“justify  the  ungodly .”  1  The  true  explanation  of 
these  striking  paradoxes  is  to  be  found  in  St.  Paul’s 
theology  of  the  ‘flesh’  as  opposed  to  the  ‘spirit,’ 
with  which  we  shall  deal  more  fully  a  little  later  on. 
We  have  already  seen  that  “justification”  in  the 
sense  of  “pardon”  is  a  primary  conception  in  St. 
Paul’s  theology.  The  other  leading  idea,  which 
brings  out  the  Pauline  doctrine  into  strong .  relief 
upon  the  background  of  the  simpler  and  more 
elementary  teaching  of  St.  James  is  that  of  the 
radical  moral  contrast  between  ‘flesh’  and  ‘spirit.’ 
The  antithesis  between  St.  James  and  St.  Paul, 
then,  is  clearly  seen  in  these  two  particulars:  —  (a) 
St.  James  has  no  theology  of  pardon  or  forgiveness 
(though  he  clearly  recognizes  the  pardon  of  sins 
as  a  Divine  and  blessed  reality)  and  (b)  St.  James 
has  no  theology  of  ‘the  spirit’  as  over  against  ‘the 
flesh.’ 


1  Rom.  iv.  s. 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  JUSTIFICATION 


145 


Now  what  are  these  “works  of  law”  which  St. 
Paul  so  strenuously  excludes  from  the  office  of 
justifying?  They  are  works  wrought  within  the 
sphere  of  the  ‘ natural’  or  ‘ fleshly ’  life,  and  from 
the  standpoint  of  man  as  a  being  gwasi-independent 
of  God  and  of  His  grace.  “Ignorant  of  God’s 
righteousness,  “the  ‘natural’  man  “goes  about  to 
establish  (his)  own  righteousness,  not  submitting 
(himself)  to  the  righteousness  of  God.”  This 
characteristically  Pauline  teaching  finds  no  counter¬ 
part  in  the  brief  Epistle  of  St.  James. 

But  before  proceeding  to  the  fuller  consideration 
of  St.  Paul’s  theology  of  ‘flesh’  versus  ‘spirit,’  let 
us  first  consider  the  relation  which,  in  the  mind  of 
St.  Paul,  subsists  between  our  human  faith  on  the 
one  hand  and  the  Divine  righteousness  (or  the 
Divine  justification)  on  the  other.  Before  we  are 
in  a  position  to  proceed  with  this  investigation  we 
have  to  recognize  at  the  outset  that  this  preposi¬ 
tion  ‘by,’  —  ‘fry’  faith  —  ‘fry’  works,  —  which  is 
of  such  critical  importance  in  this  discussion,  —  is 
(to  use  a  Hibernicism)  not  one  word,  but  two  words; 
two  words,  moreover,  which  St.  Paul  has  expressly 
distinguished  from  each  other  in  more  than  one 
passage.  In  Romans  iii.  30  it  is  stated  that  “the 
circumcision”  shall  be  justified  ‘out  of’  faith” 
(&c  7r[oT€cos ),  while  “the  uncircumcision  shall  be 
justified  ‘through’  faith  ( 8lol  irLaTeoos).  Compare 
with  this  the  well-known  passage  I.  Cor.  viii.  6, 
where  the  Apostle  affirms  that  “to  us  (Christians) 


146 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


there  is  one  God,  the  Father,  of  whom  (e£  ov )  are 
all  things,  and  one  Lord,  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom 
(8l  ov)  are  all  things.”  It  is  the  Revisers  of  the  New 
Testament  whom  we  have  to  thank  for  having  at 
last  set  this  matter  in  a  clear  light,  and  for  having 
thereby  done  justice  to  St.  Paul,  in  his  always 
careful  use  of  prepositions.  The  King  James 
translators,  as  well  as  Luther,  had  confused  these 
two  prepositions  did  and  eic  in  such  a  crucial  passage 
as  Galatians  ii.  16,  rendering  them  by  one  and  the 
same  word, —  German  ‘durch’ —  English  ‘by.’ 
As  I  have  elsewhere  pointed  out,1  the  Vulgate 
translation  of  this  passage  follows  the  Greek  lit¬ 
erally,  rendering  St.  Paul’s  words  as  follows:  — 
“Non  justihcatur  homo  ex  operibus  legis,  nisi  per 
fidem  Jesu  Chris ti.”  St.  Paul  is  here  making  use 
of  the  Greek  prepositions  ‘ek’  (or  ‘ex’)  and  ‘dia’ 
to  indicate  the  twofold  relation  which  exists  be¬ 
tween  ‘faith’  on  the  one  hand  and  our  ‘justifica¬ 
tion’  on  the  other.  These  prepositions  occur,  now 
one,  now  the  other,  in  a  multitude  of  passages,  as 
connecting  ‘faith’  and  ‘justification.’  That  is  to 
say,  two  distinct  relations  are  hereby  indicated 
as  subsisting  between  man’s  faith  on  the  one  hand 
and  man’s  justification  on  the  other.  One  is  the 
relation  of  instrumentality ,  —  indicated  by  ‘  dia  ’ 
with  the  genitive  case;  the  other  is  the  relation  of 
source  or  ground ,  —  indicated  by  ‘ek’  (or  ‘ex’). 
It  is  time  that  we  should  recognize  and  appraise 

1  In  “The  Expositor”  for  March,  1918,  p.  236  (footnote). 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  JUSTIFICATION 


147 


the  important  theological  results  which  flow  from 
St.  Paul’s  alternating  and  contrasted  use  of  these 
two  prepositions.  If  (as  Deissmann  holds)  ‘dia’ 
and  ‘ek’  are  employed  by  the  Apostle  in  this  con¬ 
nection  as  practical  synonyms,  then  any  further 
pursuit  of  this  particular  inquiry  would  be  futile. 
But  if  (as  we  believe)  there  is  a  reason  for  this  con¬ 
trasted  use,  —  namely,  to  bring  out  two  distinct 
relations  as  subsisting  between  human  faith  on  the 
one  hand  and  Divine  righteousness  (or  Divine 
justification)  on  the  other,  then  surely  it  behooves 
us  to  consider  well  the  relations  indicated  by  these 
two  particles.  As  compared  with  the  translators 
of  the  English  Bible,  St.  Jerome,  the  author  of  the 
Latin  version  known  as  the  Vulgate,  was  at  a  dis¬ 
tinct  advantage  in  having  at  his  command  two 
Latin  prepositions  (‘per’  and  ‘ex’)  which  exactly 
correspond  with  the  Pauline  ‘dia’  and  ‘ek’;  and 
for  this  reason  we  find  the  Vulgate  not  infrequently 
giving  a  more  accurate  rendering  of  certain  pas¬ 
sages  of  St.  Paul’s  Epistles  than  does  the  English 
‘Authorized’  Version.  The  matter  is  of  importance, 
for,  as  we  have  said,  two  distinct  relations  are 
here  in  question  as  subsisting  between  man’s  faith 
on  the  one  side  and  marts  justification  on  the  other. 

Through  their  emphasis  upon  faith  as  the  sole 
instrumental  cause  in  our  justification,  and  through 
their  insistence  upon  the  merits  of  Christ  as  its 
sole  objective  ground,  —  a  right  emphasis  and  a 
right  insistence,  be  it  said,  —  Protestant  theologians, 


148 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


especially  those  of  the  school  of  Calvin,  were  led  to 
ignore  and  even  to  deny  any  relation  of  ‘ ground’ 
or  ‘  source ’  as  subsisting  between  human  faith  and 
human  justification.  It  is  indeed  true  that  the  only 
1  ground ’  upon  which  man  is  or  can  be  ‘ justified’ 
in  the  highest  and  ultimate  sense  is  the  sole  merits 
of  Jesus  Christ.  In  the  language  of  Article  XI.  of 
the  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England, 
—  “We  are  accounted  righteous  before  God  only 
for  the  merit  (propter  meritum)  of  our  Lord  and 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  by  faith  (per  fidem),  and  not 
for  our  own  works  and  deservings.  Wherefore, 
that  we  are  justified  by  faith  only  (sola  fide)  is  a 
most  wholesome  doctrine,  and  very  full  of  com¬ 
fort.  .  .  .  ”  This  teaching  is  fairly  summed  up  in 
the  words  of  Hooker:  —  “Faith  is  the  only  hand 
which  putteth  on  Christ  unto  justification;  and 
Christ  the  only  garment,  which  being  so  put  on 
covereth  the  shame  of  our  defiled  natures,  hideth  the 
imperfection  of  our  works,  preserveth  us  blameless 
in  the  sight  of  God,  before  whom  otherwise  the  weak¬ 
ness  of  our  faith  were  cause  sufficient  to  make  us 
culpable,  yes  to  shut  us  from  the  Kingdom  of  heaven, 
where  nothing  that  is  not  absolute  can  enter.” 1 

The  statement  of  the  Westminster  Shorter 
Catechism  (a.d.  1643-49)  distinguishes  in  the  mat¬ 
ter  of  our  justification  between  the  two  elements 

1  Sermon  II.,  entitled  “A  Learned  Discourse  of  Justification, 
Works,  etc.,”  found  in  the  Oxford  edit,  of  Hooker’s  Works,  vol. 
HI.,  p.  530. 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  JUSTIFICATION 


149 


of  (a)  pardon  and  (b)  the  recognition  of  positive 
righteousness;  resting  both  of  these  equally  upon 
the  objective  merits  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  statement 
is  as  follows:  “ Justification  is  an  act  of  God’s  free 
grace,  wherein  he  pardoneth  all  our  sins,  and  ac- 
cepteth  us  as  righteous  in  his  sight,  only  for  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  imputed  [italics  oursj  to  us, 
and  received  by  faith  alone.” 

Even  the  theologians  of  the  Council  of  Trent 
recognize  in  the  Person  of  Christ  and  in  His  death 
upon  the  cross  the  original  ‘meritorious  cause ’ 
of  our  justification  (identifying,  however,  the  in¬ 
strumental  cause  with  the  sacrament  of  Baptism). 
All  Christians  are,  in  fact,  at  one  in  recognizing  in 
the  merits  of  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord  the  sole  ulti¬ 
mate  and  absolute  ground  of  our  justification.  Such 
a  representative  Anglo-Catholic  theologian  as  Prof. 
Francis  J.  Hall,  for  example,  says:  —  “The  sole 
meritorious  cause  (of  justification)  is  the  death  of 
Christ,  it  being  impossible  for  sinful  creatures  to 
merit  justification  by  reason  of  any  work  of  which 
they  are  capable.”  1  Our  sins  are  forgiven  for  the 
sake  of  our  Lord’s  atoning  sacrifice,  and  we  are 
accepted  as  righteous  before  God  only  as  we  are 
found  in  Him.  Yet  this  does  not  foreclose  the 
question  as  to  the  proximate  or  subjective  ground  of 
human  ‘justification,’  which,  in  the  writings  of 
of  St.  Paul,  is  set  forth  as  faith  per  eminentiam. 

1  “The  Church  and  the  Sacramental  System”  (vol.  VIII.  of 
Dogmatic  Theology,  p.  263). 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


IS© 


The  proof  of  this  is  seen  in  St.  Paul’s  frequent  use 
of  the  characteristic  phrase  ‘ek  pisteos,’ —  ‘out  of 
faith.’  If  ‘ex  ergon  ’  —  ‘out  of  works’  —  as  found 
in  Rom.  iv.  2/  means  (as  is  universally  admitted) 
justification  on  the  ground  of  works,  then  by  the 
necessary  parallelism  of  language  ‘ek  pisteos’  must 
rest  our  justification  upon  the  ground  of  human 
faith.  Faith,  then,  is  the  subjective,  relative  ground 
of  our  justification,  as  the  merits  of  Christ  are  its 
objective  and  absolute  ground. 

But  if  our  interpretation  of  justification  is  to  be 
complete  we  cannot  stop  short  of  the  recognition 
that  in  its  ultimate  and  highest  aspect  justification 
is  not  merely  apart  from  “our  own  works  and  de¬ 
servings”;  it  does  not  even  rest  upon  the  ground  of 
our  faith,  as  such;  in  the  last  analysis  it  stands  only 
in  the  objective,  personal  righteousness  of  our  Lord 
Himself.  And  this  applies  to  our  justification  not 
only  in  the  sense  of  ‘pardon’  and  ‘forgiveness/ 
but  also  in  the  sense  of  ‘  the  recognition  of  righteous¬ 
ness’  as  a  positive  element  in  human  character. 
The  reason  why  human  righteousness,  ultimately, 
is  neither  ‘out  of  works’  nor  ‘through  works,’  but 
only  ‘out  of’  and  ‘through  faith’  is,  that  while 
works’  throw  us  back  upon  ourselves  and  our  own 
efforts  as  the  ground  of  our  confidence,  faith  throws 
us  back  upon  Christ  alone.  As  touching  ‘justifi¬ 
cation’  in  the  sense  of  ‘pardon’  and  ‘forgiveness,’ 
it  is  the  crucified  Christ  who  stands  as  our  Sub- 

1  Et  7 dp  ’A/?padp  k^  epyuv  kdiKcuudi],  •  .  • 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  JUSTIFICATION  151 

stitute.  “He  bore  our  sins  in  his  own  body  on  the 
tree.”  On  the  other  hand,  for  justification  as  the 
recognition  of  (positive)  righteousness  and  accep¬ 
tableness  in  God’s  sight,  the  Risen  Christ  stands 
as  our  representative  Head,  by  whose  one  act  of 
obedience  (5lkclL<jiijl a)  upon  the  cross  “the  many” 
are  “constituted  righteous”  ( biKaloi  KaTaaradT]- 
govtcll  ot  ttoWoLj  Rom.  v.  19).  St.  Paul’s  great 
phrase  ‘justification  of  life’  means  not  merely  the 
“imputation”  of  the  character  of  Another  to  our¬ 
selves;  it  means  that  to  those  who  are  in  vital 
union  with  the  Risen  Christ  His  perfect  righteous¬ 
ness  has  become  theirs,  —  vitally  theirs,  —  through 
their  mystical  union  with  Him,  their  Head.  Never¬ 
theless,  it  remains  true  that  that  righteousness  ever 
remains  personally  His,  and  His  alone.  For  the 
believing  soul,  the  glory,  the  joy,  the  ground  of 
confidence  is  ever  this;  —  “My  righteousness  is  not 
in  myself,  but  in  Him  alone.”  “Of  him  are  ye  in 
Christ  Jesus,  who  of  God  is  made  unto  us  wisdom, 
and  righteousness,  and  sanctification  and  redemp¬ 
tion;  that,  (according  as  it  is  written)  He  that  glo- 
rieth,  let  him  glory  in  the  Lord”  (I.  Cor.  i.  30,  31). 
To  the  same  effect  are  the  words  of  the  prophet:  — 
“And  this  is  his  Name  whereby  he  shall  be  called,  — 
Jehovah  our  Righteousness”  (Jer.  xxiii.  6).  The 
language  of  Article  XI.  has  therefore  the  amplest 
Scriptural  warrant:  —  “We  are  accounted  righteous 
before  God  only  for  the  merit  of  our  Lord  and 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  by  faith.” 


152 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


But  now  to  return  to  the  case  as  between  St. 
Paul  and  St.  James:  —  It  is  universally  admitted 
that  there  is  a  sharp  antithesis,  if  not  an  apparent 
contradiction,  between  the  respective  statements  of 
the  two  Apostles,  —  “By  the  works  of  the  law 
shall  no  flesh  be  justified,”  and,  —  “Ye  see  then 
how  that  by  works  a  man  is  justified,  and  not  by 
faith  only.”  But  let  us  look  at  the  two  examples  of 
‘ justification’  cited  by  St.  James.  What  relation 
do  the  respective  acts  of  obedience  performed  by 
Abraham,  the  “father  of  the  faithful”  and  Rahab 
the  harlot  sustain  to  the  principle  of  Law  ?  The 
act  of  Abraham  in  offering  Isaac  his  son  upon  the 
altar  was  in  obedience  to  a  specific  Divine  command, 
given  centuries  before  the  Law  was  promulgated 
on  Mount  Sinai.  Abraham’s  act  stands  out  as 
preeminently  a  deed  of  faith;  it  was  accomplished 
not  in  the  spirit  of  self-dependence,  but  rather  in 
the  spirit  of  self-abnegation  and  of  utter  dependence 
upon  the  Divine  word  and  the  Divine  power.  And 
(as  we  are  elsewhere  informed)  Abraham  was  assured 
that,  in  spite  of  all  appearances,  God  could  even 
raise  up  Isaac  from  the  dead,  should  such  an 
exercise  of  Divine  power  become  necessary.1  As 
for  the  act  of  Rahab  in  admitting  the  Hebrew 
spies  into  her  house,  and  afterward  in  “sending 
them  out  another  way,”  —  this,  again,  was  anything 
but  an  act  of  mere  legal  righteousness,  —  of  sub¬ 
mission  to  a  code  of  rules  and  regulations.  Rahab 

1  Hebr.  xi.  19. 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  JUSTIFICATION 


153 


acted  in  violation  of  the  only  code  she  knew,  — 
the  “ martial  law”  of  her  city  of  Jericho,  then  in  a 
state  of  siege.  Rahab’s  was  a  deed  of  faith ,  —  of 
faith  in  a  God  not  of  her  own  nation  and  people, 
but  who  was,  nevertheless,  as  she  believed,  the  su¬ 
preme  God  of  power  and  of  righteousness.  It  is  a 
fact  (though  St.  James  does  not  say  so)  that  in 
the  acts  referred  to  •  both  Abraham  and  Rahab 
wrought  ‘in  the  spirit’  and  not  ‘ according  to  the 
flesh.’  Moreover,  each  of  them  acted  as  in  the 
presence  of  God,  and  not  “to  be  seen  of  men.” 
Was  it  not,  then,  in  the  presence  of  God  that  they 
“were  justified”?  From  the  spiritual  view-point 
the  teaching  of  St.  James  and  the  teaching  of  St. 
Paul  are  seen  to  be  perfectly  at  one. 

Turning  now  to  St.  Paul,  we  find  him  citing  the 
case  of  Abraham  in  witness  to  the  fact  that  “faith 
is  reckoned”  to  a  man  “for  righteousness.”  It 
is  in  the  distinction  between  faith  as  the  instru¬ 
ment  and  faith  as  the  ground  of  man’s  justification 
that,  I  feel  sure,  we  are  to  look  for  the  complete 
reconciliation  of  the  antithesis  between  the  teaching 
of  these  two  Apostles.  There  is  but  one  ‘instru¬ 
ment’  of  justification,  and  that  is  faith.  ‘Works’  are 
never  spoken  of  in  the  New  Testament  as  the  means 
or  instrumentality  whereby  a  man  is  justified.  We 
have  here  the  important  witness  of  St.  Clement  of 
Rome,  who  (as  Bishop  Bull  says)  was  “the  contem¬ 
porary  and  fellow-laborer  of  St.  Paul,1  and  there- 

1  See  Phil.  iv.  3. 


154 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


fore  well  skilled  in  the  meaning  of  the  Apostle.” 
St.  Clement’s  words  are  as  follows:  —  “And  we, 
therefore,  having  been  called  by  His  will  in  Christ 
Jesus,  are  not  justified  through  ourselves  (ou  8C  iav- 
t&v  8l Kaiovneda)  neither  through  our  own  wisdom, 
or  knowledge,  or  piety,  or  our  works  which  we  have 
done  in  holiness  of  heart,  but  through  faith  (aXXa  bt,a 
rrjs  TrLcrrecos)  through  which  Almighty  God  jus¬ 
tified  all  men  from  the  beginning  of  the  world.  ”  1 
This  preposition  ‘dia’  (followed  by  the  genitive 
case,  and  thereby  indicating  instrumentality)  is,  we 
may  say,  consecrated  to  the  use  of  faith.  We  are 
never  said  in  the  New  Testament  to  be  justified 
4  through  ’  ourselves,  —  our  own  works  and  deserv¬ 
ings, —  but  only  1  through ’  faith;  —  faith  which 
looks  away  from  itself  to  God,  receives  His  gifts 
and  relies  upon  His  promises.  Even  St.  James  no¬ 
where  says  that  a  man  is  justified  Through’  works 
(8l’  epyoov), — a  phrase  which  would  imply  that  man 
could  by  some  agency  of  his  own,  independent  of 
the  grace  of  God,  constitute  himself  as  righteous  in 
God’s  sight.  Any  such  idea  must  needs  be  repug¬ 
nant  to  all  Christian  feeling.  What  St.  James  does 
say,  however,  —  and  here  his  language  differs  from 
that  of  St.  Paul,  —  is,  that  a  man  is  justified  ‘ out 
of’  works  (e£  epycov),  that  is  to  say,  upon  his  record; 
which  is  a  very  different  matter.  Here  (from  St. 
James’  point  of  view)  there  is  abundant  room  for 
“works”  to  cooperate  with  “faith,”  inasmuch  as 

1  Clement  Ep.  I.  ad  Cor.,  xxxii. 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  JUSTIFICATION 


155 


faith  is  itself  most  closely  akin  to  good  works, 
being  an  act  of  the  soul  directed  toward  God,  and 
laying  hold  upon  His  word.  Faith  is  an  evi¬ 
dence  and  a  manifestation  of  Divine  life  within  the 
soul;  as,  indeed,  good  works  are  also.  The  case 
of  Abraham  witnesses  that  “faith  is  reckoned  for 
righteousness,”  and  St.  Paul  devotes  the  entire 
fourth  chapter  of  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans  to 
proving  this  point.  God  “counts”  the  act  of  faith 
“for  righteousness”;  He  so  “imputes”  or  “reckons” 
it  to  the  man  who  believes  on  Him;  who  takes  Him 
at  His  word.  From  this  point  of  view,  faith  is  seen 
as  the  sister  and  the  ally  of  good  works;  not  in 
any  way  as  their  rival.  Faith  is  complementary  to 
them,  and  they  to  her.  If  a  true  and  genuine  faith 
is  the  source  of  good  works,  good  works  on  the  other 
hand  are  the  crown  and  completion  of  faith.  “Thou 
seest  how  faith  wrought  with  (Abraham’s)  works, 
and  by  works  was  faith  made  perfect;  and  the 
Scripture  was  fulfilled  which  saith,  Abraham  be¬ 
lieved  God  and  it  was  reckoned  to  him  for  right¬ 
eousness,  and  he  was  called  the  friend  of  God” 
(Jas.  ii.  22,  23). 

To  sum  up  the  matter:  On  the  objective  side, 
Christ  is  our  “righteousness”;  Christ  alone.  But 
on  the  subjective  side,  —  we  are  now  speaking  of 
man  as  renewed  in  Christ,  and  as  having  been 
made  partaker  of  Divine  grace,  —  our  faith,  our 
works  and  our  words  all  constitute  a  part  of  our 
record  as  this  lies  open  before  the  face  of  Almighty 


156  SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 

God.1  With  this  principle  St.  Paul  himself  is  in 
perfect  agreement;  witness  his  words  in  Rom.  ii. 
13:  —  “For  not  the  hearers  of  law  are  just  before 
God,  but  the  doers  of  law  shall  be  justified;”  or  again 
(in  chapter  iii.,  vs.  31),  —  “Do  we  then  make  void 
the  law  through  faith?  God  forbid:  nay,  we  estab¬ 
lish  the  law.” 

It  makes  a  very  great  difference  whether  we  view 
this  matter  of  “justification”  from  the  point  of  view 
of  spiritual  vision  (the  Pauline  point  of  view)  or 
from  that  of  moral  and  ethical  judgment  (the  point 
of  view  of  St.  James).  Looking  forward  and  up¬ 
ward,  faith  grasps  with  eye  and  hand  the  Divine 
promise  in  Christ;  herself  naught  but  an  instru¬ 
ment,  she  possesses  no  causative  or  contributive 
quality  of  her  own.  Faith  simply  receives  the  free 
gift  of  the  Divine  pardon  and  of  the  righteousness 
of  Christ.  These  precious  gifts  are  freely  given  her 
of  God;  faith  herself  contributes  nothing;  she 
merely  receives.  But  a  parte  post}  —  going  back, 
that  is,  and  reviewing  the  record  from  the  point 
of  view  of  moral  judgment,  —  what  is  therein 
recognized  as  evidence  that  a  man  is  indeed  (or 
at  least  has  begun  to  be)  what  God  would  have  him, 
is  and  can  be  nothing  else  in  the  world  but  the 
man’s  personal  obedience ,  whether  that  obedience 
takes  the  form  of  faith,  of  words  or  of  deeds.  With- 

1  Cp.  A.  J.  Mason:  “In  the  New  Testament  we  are  said  to  be 
justified  by  our  faith,  by  our  works  and  by  our  words.”  The 
Faith  of  the  Gospel,  p.  364. 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  JUSTIFICATION 


157 


out  deeds,  man’s  obedience  to  the  Divine  will  can 
never  be  proved  or  established.  In  the  words  of 
St.  John;  —  “Little  children,  let  no  man  deceive 
you;  he  that  doeth  righteousness  is  righteous,  even 
as  He  (Christ)  is  righteous”  (I.  Jno.  iii.  7).  Or 
again,  in  the  words  of  St.  Paul,  already  quoted: 
“For  not  the  hearers  of  the  law  are  just  before  God, 
but  the  doers  of  the  law  shall  be  justified.”  Pre¬ 
cisely  for  the  reason  that  our  justification  is  ‘out 
of’  faith  (ek  pisteos)  it  is  also  ‘out  of’  works  (ex 
ergon).  Only  we  are  to  remember  that  the  “works” 
here  in  question  are  those  acts  of  obedience  which 
are  done  through  “the  grace  of  Christ  and  the 
inspiration  of  His  Spirit;”  not  anything  that  we 
ourselves  can  do  or  even  think,  independently  of 
God,  “of  whose  only  gift  it  cometh  that  His  faithful 
people  do  unto  Him  true  and  laudable  service.” 

As  we  have  seen,  the  teaching  of  St.  Paul  empha¬ 
sizes  the  great  fact  of  Divine  pardon  and  forgiveness, 
and  puts  in  the  forefront  the  personal  righteousness 
of  Jesus  Christ.  St.  James,  on  the  other  hand, 
regards  religion  from  the  point  of  view  of  our  own 
personal  character,  —  yours  and  mine.  And  here 
we  must  call  attention  to  the  contrasting  use  of 
terms  as  between  the  two  Apostles.  There  is  the 
less  need  to  dwell  upon  this  matter  here,  since  it 
has  been  so  fully  discussed  in  the  pages  of  a  hundred 
commentators.  St.  Paul  uses  the  word  ‘faith’ 
in  a  larger  sense  than  does  St.  James;  he  thinks  of 
faith  as  the  expression  of  the  whole  man.  St. 


i58 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


James,  on  the  other  hand,  employs  the  term  ‘works  ’ 
(the  noun  alone,  without  the  qualifying  adjective 
good)  in  a  wider  sense  than  does  St.  Paul.  It  is  a 
man’s  works  which,  in  the  mind  of  St.  James,  are 
the  characteristic  expression  of  the  man  himself. 
While  St.  James  thinks  of  faith  as  an  intellectual 
act,  as  theoretical  rather  than  as  practical,  St. 
Paul,  on  the  other  hand,  is  thinking  of  (legal) 
works  as  those  which  are  mechanical;  in  other 
words,  as  an  expression  of  self-righteousness,  which 
can  have  no  other  effect  than  to  condemn  him  who 
presumes  to  build  upon  them.  Accordingly,  St. 
Paul’s  use  of  the  term  ‘ works’  must  be  interpreted 
by  the  phrases  ‘works  of  law,’  ‘works  of  the  flesh’ 
(cp.  the  phrase  ‘dead  works’  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews).  Yet  St.  Paul  and  St.  James  come  to¬ 
gether  —  their  teaching  coincides  —  when  we  find 
St.  Paul  at  the  climax  of  his  great  argument  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  declaring  it  as  the  crowning 
result  of  the  operation  of  God’s  grace  in  Christ 
Jesus  that  “the  righteous  requirement  (5i/catco/xa) 
of  the  law  should  be  fulfilled  in  us  who  walk  not 
after  the  flesh,  but  after  the  spirit”  (Rom.  viii.  4). 

On  the  whole,  St.  James’  conception  of  “justifi¬ 
cation”  is  seen  to  be  distinctly  narrower  in  its 
scope  than  is  the  Pauline  conception.  But  it  is  the 
Pauline  contrast  between  ‘flesh’  and  ‘spirit’  which 
brings  into  clearest  light  the  doctrinal  limitations 
of  St.  James.  The  question  as  to  whether  human 
righteousness  is  ‘by  works’  or  ‘by  faith’  passes 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  JUSTIFICATION 


159 


over  and  is  resolved  into  the  question  whether 
man’s  righteousness  is  attained  and  realized  ‘in 
the  flesh’  or  ‘in  the  spirit.’ 

RIGHTEOUSNESS  IN  THE  FLESH  OR  IN  THE  SPIRIT? 

One  of  the  characteristic  motifs  of  St.  Paul’s 
thought,  as  is  well  known  to  all  students  of  the 
New  Testament,  is  the  fundamental  contrast 
between  ‘flesh’  and  ‘spirit.’  The  Epistle  to  the 
Romans,  —  that  Epistle  of  great  antitheses,  —  sets 
before  us  at  the  outset  this  fundamental  contrast. 
The  Apostle  announces  as  the  great  subject  of  his 
message,  “the  Gospel  of  God  .  .  .  concerning  his 
Son  .  .  .  who  was  born  of  the  seed  of  David  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  flesh;  but  declared  (to  be)  the  Son  of  God 
in  power  according  to  the  spirit  of  holiness,  by  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead”  (ch.  i.  1-4).  This  antith¬ 
esis  between  ‘flesh’  and  ‘spirit’  must  be  taken 
into  account  if  we  are  to  understand  St.  Paul’s 
complete  theory  of  “  justification.  ”  Now  it  is  a 
noteworthy  fact  that  the  Epistle  of  St.  James 
betrays  no  evidence  of  any  recognition  of  the 
Pauline  contrast  between  ‘flesh’  and  ‘spirit.’  St. 
James  does  indeed  speak  of  ‘the  body’  as  over 
against  ‘the  spirit’  (ii.  26),  and  again  speaks  of 
‘spirit’  in  that  passage  which  has  been  so  variously 
interpreted  (ch.  iv.  5)  — “The  spirit  which  he 
made  to  dwell  within  us  longeth  unto  envying”. 
But  that  is  all.  Throughout  the  Epistle  of  James 


i6o 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


no  mention  is  made  either  of  the  Holy  Spirit  or  of 
man’s  higher  spiritual  nature  as  in  contrast  with 
‘the  flesh  of  sin.’  With  St.  Paul,  on  the  other 
hand,  this  contrast  is  vital.  As  we  have  just  seen, 
it  stands  in  the  forefront  of  his  greatest  theological 
epistle.  Again,  at  the  beginning  of  his  discussion 
of  ‘justification  by  faith’  (Rom.  iv.  i,  2)  St.  Paul, 
in  citing  the  case  of  Abraham,  puts  this  leading 
question:  —  “What,  then,  shall  we  say  that  our 
forefather  Abraham  hath  found  according  to  the 
flesh?”  (In  the  rendering  of  this  sentence  the 
American  Revised  Version  is  to  be  preferred.) 
“For”  (as  the  Apostle  continues)  “if  Abraham  was 
justified  by  works,  he  hath  whereof  to  glory;  but 
not  toward  God.”  At  the  conclusion  of  the  great 
theological  argument  (in  chapter  viii.)  “the  flesh” 
(with  “the  things  of  the  flesh”  and  “the  mind  of 
the  flesh”)  is  set  in  final  contrast  with  “the  spirit” 
(“the  things  of  the  spirit,”  “the  mind  of  the  spirit”) 
.  .  .  “For  the  mind  of  the  flesh  is  death;  but 
the  mind  of  the  spirit  is  life  and  peace;”  and,  “ye 
are  not  in  the  flesh,  but  in  the  Spirit,  if  so  be  that 
the  Spirit  of  God  dwelleth  in  you.”  This  same 
antithesis  (so  deeply  ingrained  into  the  Apostle’s 
consciousness)  reappears  in  one  of  his  latest  epistles 
(I.  Tim.  iii.  16);  —  “And  without  controversy, 
great  is  the  mystery  of  godliness;  God  was  mani¬ 
fested  in  the  flesh,  justified  in  the  spirit.  ...” 

In  the  thought  of  St.  Paul  the  ‘flesh’  is  the  point 
of  departure;  the  ‘spirit’  is  ever  the  goal.  These 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  JUSTIFICATION 


161 


are  the  negative  and  the  positive  poles  of  his 
theology.  For  ‘the  flesh’  and  for  those  who  are 
‘in  the  flesh’  there  is  and  can  be  no  ‘justification’ 
save  that  which  consists  in  the  pardon  of  man’s 
sin  through  the  gracious  act  of  Him  who  “justifieth 
the  ungodly.”  And  this  ‘justification’  is  by  faith 
alone.  On  the  other  hand,  for  those  who  are  “not 
in  the  flesh,  but  in  the  spirit,”  —  i.e.,  for  those  who 
are  “in  Christ  Jesus,”  —  there  is  now  “no  con¬ 
demnation.”  In  them,  —  in  their  daily  walk  and 
conversation,  —  the  law  with  its  ‘  righteous  re¬ 
quirement’  (6t/ca(cojLta)  is  vindicated.  The  law  is 
magnified,  its  ordinance  is  fulfilled  in  those  who 
“walk  not  after  the  flesh,  but  after  the  Spirit” 
(Rom.  viii.  4).  This  is  for  the  reason  that  sin  has 
been  condemned  once  for  all,  even  in  the  flesh  of 
Christ  Himself  (viii.  3).  It  is  in  the  spirit  that 
Christ  has  been  justified,  not  only  in  “the  days  of 
his  flesh,”  —  of  His  life  here  upon  earth,  —  but 
supremely  in  and  by  the  fact  of  His  resurrection 
from  the  dead,  which  was  His  final  and  complete 
vindication  at  the  hands  of  Almighty  God.  Thus 
we  are  led  on  to  the  final  question  as  to  our  Lord’s 
personal  vindication  (or  justification)  as  Man. 

WAS  OUR  LORD,  AS  MAN,  JUSTIFIED  BY 
‘WORKS  OF  law’? 

In  the  passage  quoted  above1  our  Lord  is  said 
to  have  been  “justified  in  the  spirit”  (or  “in  spirit,” 

1  I.  Tim.  iii.  16. 


162 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


h  Tvev/AoiTL).  This  brings  up  at  once  the  question 
as  to  our  Lord’s  personal  vindication  as  Man. 
This  question  is  raised  in  no  idle  or  irreverent  spirit; 
it  has  a  most  important  bearing  upon  ourselves. 
It  is  in  the  light  of  Christ’s  personal  vindication  as 
Man  that  we  may  the  more  clearly  perceive  (even 
though  it  be  largely  by  the  way  of  contrast)  the 
rationale  of  our  own  justification.  Just  here  at 
the  outset  we  must  be  clear  as  to  the  meaning  of 
our  terms.  It  is  obvious  that  in  one  sense  our 
Lord  needed  no  ‘  justification.’  He  certainly  stood 
in  no  need  of  the  forgiveness  of  sin.  He,  the  ‘Holy 
One  of  God,’  had  no  sins  of  His  own  to  answer  for. 
His  was  not  that  ‘negative’  justification . of  ‘par¬ 
don’  or  ‘forgiveness’;  rather  it  was  the  positive 
justification  which  consisted  in  the  recognition  of 
His  stainless  righteousness,  —  of  His  perfect  and 
unfailing  obedience  to  the  will  and  precept  of  Al¬ 
mighty  God.  The  unique  glory  of  our  Redeemer 
is  seen  in  the  fact  of  His  personal  sinlessness,  and 
in  the  resultant  fact  that  He  could  become,  by 
virtue  of  His  atoning  death,  the  source  to  us  sinners 
of  our  acquittal  before  the  bar  of  Almighty  God. 
Our  Lord’s  perfect  obedience  to  the  will  and  pre¬ 
cept  of  His  Father  is  indicated  by  His  own  words:  — 
“No  man  taketh  my  life  from  me,  but  I  lay  it  down 
of  myself;  I  have  power  to  lay  it  down  and  I  have 
power  to  take  it  again;  this  commandment  have  I 
received  from  my  Father”  (Jno.  x.  18). 

Confining  ourselves,  then,  to  the  positive  aspect 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  JUSTIFICATION  163 


of  justification,  we  repeat  our  question :  —  Was 
our  Lord,  as  Man,  justified  ‘by  works’  or  ‘by  faith 
only’?  Or,  —  to  put  the  question  in  a  somewhat 
different  form;  —  Was  Jesus  Christ,  as  Man, 
justified  ‘by  works  of  law,’  in  the  Pauline  sense  of 
the  latter  phrase?  The  inquiry,  as  I  have  said,  is 
no  idle  or  irreverent  one;  it  has  an  important 
bearing  upon  the  matter  of  our  own  justification. 
While  St.  Paul  does  not  apply  this  test  directly  to 
the  case  of  our  Lord,  yet  enough  is  contained  in 
what  he  does  say,  taken  in  connection  with  other 
New  Testament  evidence,  to  supply  an  answer  to 
the  question.  For  the  Apostle  lays  it  down  as  a  uni¬ 
versal  principle  having  its  application  to  all  men:  — 
“In  law,  no  one  ( ovdeis )  is  justified  with  God  .  .  . 
for  the  righteous  shall  live  by  faith,”  —  6  dUcuos 
€K  Tri(JTeoJs  f rjaeraL  (Gal.  iii.  n).  And  again:  — 
“By  works  of  law  (e£  epyuv  vopov)  shall  no  flesh  be 
justified  in  his  sight;  for  by  law  is  recognition  of 
sin”  (bia  yap  vopov  eirLy vonns  apaprLas).1  It 
seems  clear  that  this  principle  has  its  application  to 
Jesus  Himself  as  Man;  for  Christ  was  “made  flesh” 
and  is  even  said  to  have  been  sent  “in  the  likeness 
of  sinful  flesh,”2  though  Himself  personally  without 
sin.  And  yet  if  Christ,  the  Son  of  Man,  had  not 
Himself  lived  ‘by  faith,’  if,  in  other  words,  He  had 
lived  and  thought  and  acted  in  independence  of 
His  Father,  would  there  not  have  been,  even  in 
His  case,  ‘the  recognition  of  sin’?  Christ’s  own 

1  Rom.  iii.  20.  2  Rom.  viii.  3. 


164 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


testimony  is:  —  “I  can  of  mine  own  self  do  nothing; 
.  .  .  the  Father,  who  dwelleth  within  me,  he  doeth 
the  works.”  1  And  again,  “Why  callest  thou  me 
good?  there  is  none  good  but  one,  that  is,  God.” 2 
Is  it  not  clear  that  Christ’s  righteousness  as  Man 
was  not  a  law-righteousness,  but  a  1  righteousness 
of  faith,’  —  the  type  and  example  of  all  human 
righteousness?  3  We  must,  indeed,  distinguish  be¬ 
tween  our  faith  and  His  faith;  between  the  faith 
of  sinners  and  of  Him  who  was  the  Sinless  One. 
We  believe  on  Him  that  we  may  be  pardoned  and 
forgiven;  His  faith  in  God  sought,  as  it  needed, 
no  forgiveness.  Moreover,  the  faith 'of  Jesus  was 
perfect;  while  ours  is  but  “as  a  grain  of  mustard- 
seed.”  Nevertheless,  Christ’s  faith,  like  our  own, 
was  an  expression  of  entire  and  utter  dependence 
upon  God.  It  is  not  going  too  far  to  say  that  had 
Jesus  been  unwilling  to  yield  Himself  to  the  will 
of  God  in  the  obedient  self-surrender  of  death,  —  a 
death  which  came  at  the  hands  of  unreasonable  and 
wicked  men  as  the  reward  of  a  blameless  and 
beneficent  life,  —  even  the  stainless  record  of  the 
Son  of  Man  Himself  would  not,  in  the  last  resort, 

1  Jno.  v.  30;  xiv.  10.  2  Matt.  xix.  17. 

3  Cp.  Calvin,  Inst.  II.  c.  17:  “There  is  no  reason,  therefore, 
why  the  justification  of  men  should  not  be  gratuitous,  from  the 
mere  mercy  of  God,  and  why,  at  the  same  time,  the  merit  of 
Christ  should  not  intervene,  which  is  subservient  to  the  mercy  of 
God.  ...  I  grant,  indeed,  that  if  any  man  would  oppose  Christ 
simply  and  alone  to  the  judgment  of  God,  there  would  be  no  room 
for  merit;  because  it  is  impossible  to  find  in  man  any  excellence 
which  can  merit  the  favor  of  God.” 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  JUSTIFICATION  165 

have  ‘ justified’  Him  before  God;  nor  could  He 
have  received  the  final  vindication  of  His  glorious 
Resurrection.  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  His 
submission  to  the  baptism  and  the  cup  of  death, 
achieved  for  Himself  and  for  us  the  perfect  ‘di- 
kaioma’  or  ‘act  of  righteousness.’ 1  The  seamless 
robe  of  Jesus,  —  the  symbol  of  a  complete  and 
blameless  human  life,  —  was  (so  to  speak)  laid  aside 
in  the  hour  of  His  mortal  agony  that  He  might  be 
clothed  upon  with  the  heavenly  garment  of  a 
righteousness  from  above.  It  is  through  the  Cross 
that  the  deepest  words  of  Jesus  find  their  interpre¬ 
tation: —  “If  thou  wilt  enter  into  life,  keep  the 
commandments;”  but,  “if  thou  wilt  be  perfect ” 
the  cross  must  be  undergone.2  “He  that  loveth  his 
life  shall  lose  it,  but  he  that  hateth  his  life  in  this 
world  shall  keep  it  unto  life  eternal.”  3  Our  Lord 
enunciated  this  as  the  law  for  His  disciples  because 
it  was,  first  of  all,  the  law  for  Himself.  Death,  as 
it  presented  itself  to  the  Sinless  Man,  struck  Him 
with  amazement  and  exceeding  heaviness  of  soul. 
What  had  He,  of  all  men,  done  that  He  should 
deserve  to  die?  Yet,  had  our  Lord  not  stood  this 
last  and  crucial  test,  all  His  previous  righteousness 
and  holiness  would  have  availed  nothing.  Even 
the  Sinless  Man  must  not  trust  in  Himself  that  He 
is  righteous,  or  find  any  righteousness  apart  from 
the  grace  of  Almighty  God  and  faith  in  Him.  This 
gives  us  the  key  to  the  moral  consciousness  of  Jesus: 

1  Rom  v.  16.  2  Matt.  xix.  17-21.  a  Jno.  xii.  25. 


i66 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


—  “Why  callest  thou  me  good?  none  is  good  save 
One,  that  is,  GOD.”  Unlike  Job  of  old,1  the  Son 
of  Man  justified  God  rather  than  Himself.  “Though 
he  were  a  Son,  yet  learned  he  obedience  through  the 
things  which  he  suffered;  and  having  been  made 
perfect,  he  became  to  all  them  that  obey  Him  the 
author  of  eternal  salvation.”  2 

Our  Lord  Himself,  then,  was  not  justified  ‘out 
of  works  of  law/  save  as  it  was  Through  faith/ 
So  much  may  be  fairly  said  to  be  carried  by  the 
statement  of  St.  Paul  in  that  remarkable  and  preg¬ 
nant  utterance  in  Galatians  ii.  16,  —  “Knowing  that 
man  is  not  justified  out  of  works  of  law  (e£  epyuv 
vopov)  except  it  be  through  faith  of  Jesus  Christ” 
(5ia  7r[oTecos  ’Irjcrov  XptcrroD).  The  personal  faith  of 
Jesus  is  here  exhibited  as  the  sole  means  of  human 
justification  before  Almighty  God.  As  Christ  was 
justified,  so  must  we  seek  to  be  justified;  for  we 
are  seeking  to  be  justified  ‘in  Christ/  i.e.,  within 
the  sphere  of  His  life.3  If  we  share  in  our  Lord’s 
personal  justification,  it  is  because  we  ourselves  are 
made  partakers  of  His  resurrection  life;  a  life  which 
He  has  won  for  us  by  that  unique  act  of  obedience 
in  giving  Himself  to  death  upon  the  cross  on  our 
behalf. 

But  all  this  means  that  our  Lord  was  justified 
‘in  spirit’  rather  than  ‘in  flesh.’  His  righteousness 
was  a  free,  a  filial  righteousness,  just  because  it 
was  a  ‘righteousness  of  faith.’  As  such,  His  is  the 

1  Job  xxxii.  2.  2  Heb.  v.  8,  9.  3  Gal.  ii.  17. 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  JUSTIFICATION 


167 


type  and  example  of  all  Gospel  righteousness,  as 
over  against  servile  ‘works  of  law/ 

It  is  true  that  in  His  life  upon  earth  our  Lord 
did  keep  the  law  of  Moses,  and  kept  it  perfectly. 
He  was  the  only  One  who  ever  did  keep  that  law 
perfectly.  His  unique  challenge  to  the  Jews  who 
heard  Him  was:  —  “Which  of  you  convicteth  me  of 
sin?”  If  Jesus  had  not  kept  the  Law  and  kept  it 
perfectly,  He  could  not  have  made  atonement  for 
our  sins,  because  He  would  have  had  sins  of  His 
own  to  answer  for.  Christ’s  death  on  the  cross  was 
a  free  and  voluntary  act  just  because  it  was  under¬ 
gone  upon  our  account;  not  upon  His  own.  And 
yet,  if  our  Lord’s  personal  righteousness  was  or 
could  have  been  a  righteousness  achieved  ‘in  the 
flesh,’  i.e.,  as  independent  of  His  Father,  —  His 
death  upon  the  cross  would  have  been  emptied  of 
its  meaning.  That  death  on  Calvary  and  that 
resurrection  from  the  grave  are  the  supreme  and 
abiding  witness  that  man’s  righteousness,  —  as 
man’s  life  itself,  —  is  not  his  own  save  as  it  comes 
to  him  by  the  gift  of  God.  “It  is  of  faith,  that  it 
might  be  according  to  grace.”  May  we  not  say 
that  the  sentence  holds  true  not  only  in  regard 
to  ourselves  but  even  in  regard  to  our  Lord  Him¬ 
self  as  Man, —  “If  righteousness  be  by  the  Law, 
then  Christ  died  gratuitously”  (Scopeazq  Gal.  ii.  21); 
His  death  was  unnecessary  and  uncalled-for. 


i68 


SPIRIT  AND  PERSONALITY 


Appended  Note.  —  Aspects  of  our  Lord’s  Obedience. 
The  ‘righteousness  of  faith’  includes  and  takes  up  into  itself  the 
‘righteousness  of  the  law,’  even  as  the  priesthood  of  Melchizedek 
includes  and  takes  up  into  itself  the  priestly  office  and  work  of 
Aaron.  Again,  as  ‘Seed  of  Abraham’  our  Lord  is  He  to  whom 
(in  Abraham)  the  Divine  promise  had  been  made.1  Because  Jesus 
Christ  is  ‘of  faith,’  He  and  He  alone  was  true  ‘Son  of  Abraham.’ 2 
Furthermore,  Christ  was  Himself  both  “  ‘author’  and  ‘perfecter’ 
of  our  faith.”  3  And  if  we  be  Christ’s  by  faith,  —  i.e.,  by  sharing 
in  His  personal  faith,  as  well  as  by  believing  upon  Him,  —  then 
are  we  “Abraham’s  seed,  and  heirs  according  to  promise.”4 

While  the  death  of  Jesus  Christ  stands  out  as  a  unique  act 
of  human  faith,  it  was,  most  of  all,  an  act  of  love;  —  of  that 
love  which  is  said  to  be  “the  fulfilling  of  the  law.”  The  law 
requires  love  of  one’s  neighbor  as  one's  self.  Grace,  which  was 
fulfilled  by  our  Lord,  makes  us  love  our  neighbor  even  more  than 
ourselves:  —  “Greater  love  hath  no  man  than  this,  that  a  man  lay 
down  his  life  for  his  friends.”  But  it  was  even  while  we  were 
yet  sinners  and  enemies  to  God  that  Christ  died  for  us.  Surely 
in  this  the  Divine  love  is  “commended”  and  signalized  as  in 
nothing  else  in  all  the  world.5  “Hereby  know  we  love,”  —  we 
learn  to  understand  something  of  what  love  is,  —  “  because  he 
laid  down  his  life  for  us.”  The  practical  inference  and  application 
of  this  is,  that  “we  ought  to  lay  down  our  lives  for  the  brethren.”  6 

It  is  true  that  our  Lord,  in  assuming  our  nature,  took  “the 
form  of  a  servant”  and  became  subject  to  law.7  Yet  Christ  was 
more  than  a  “servant”;  He  was  God’s  Son.  While  He  was 
Messianic  ‘Servant  of  Jehovah’  and  in  that  capacity  fulfilled  the 
Old  Testament  prophecies,  yet  He  was  ‘Servant’  in  the  sense  of 
7rcus  rather  than  of  5o0\os.8  We  on  our  part,  though  made  par- 

1  Gal.  iii.  16-19.  2  Gal.  iii.  7.  3  Heb.  xii.  2. 

4  Gal.  iii.  29.  5  Rom.  v.  6-10. 

6  I.  Jno.  iii.  16  (R.V.). 

7  Philip,  ii.  7;  Gal.  iv.  4. 

8  Acts  iii.  13,  26;  iv.  27,  30  (R.  V.)  and  cp.  the  LXX  of  Isa. 
xli.  8,  9;  xlii.  1;  xliii.  10;  Iii.  13. 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  JUSTIFICATION  169 


takers  of  the  adoption  of  sons,  yet  remain  throughout  ‘servants’ 
( bovKoi )  of  God  and  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  In  service  as  in 
Sonship  our  Lord  ever  remains  unique.  It  was  in  the  spirit  of  a 
Son  that  Christ  was  obedient,  and  in  that  obedience  was  ‘justified.’ 
We  on  our  part  are  delivered  from  the  law,  so  as  to  serve  “in 
newness  of  the  spirit,  and  not  in  oldness  of  the  letter.”  1 


1  Rom.  vii.  6. 


SUMMARY  OF  CONTENTS 

Chapter  I. 

The  Exaltation  and  Heavenly  Priesthood  of  Christ. 

i.  THE  GLORIFICATION  OF  CHRIST;  HIS  RELATION  TO 

THE  HOLY  SPIRIT 

During  recent  years  attention  has  been  especially  directed 
to  the  historic  Christ,  the  Jesus  of  the  Gospels.  The  time 
seems  now  to  have  come  to  consider  afresh  the  Person  of  the 
Divine  Christ  as  a  transcendent  yet  ever-present  Reality. 
Our  point  of  departure  in  the  present  study  is  the  glori¬ 
fication  of  Christ.  This  ‘glorification’  involves  on  the  one 
hand  a  new  relation  to  the  world  and  to  the  Church;  on  the 
other  hand  it  implies  a  new  relation  as  sustained  by  the 
Divine  Christ  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  While  personally 
distinct  from  Christ,  the  Holy  Spirit  is  at  the  same  time 
essentially  one  with  Him  —  a  constituent  element  in  the 
Being  of  the  Risen  and  glorified  Lord.  This  ‘glorification’ 
of  Christ,  which  is  at  the  same  time  the  manifested  presence 
of  ‘the  Spirit,’  is  the  condition  of  the  existence  and  life  of 
the  Christian  Church. 

The  Person  of  Christ,  the  Divine  Son,  our  point  df  de¬ 
parture  in  this  study  of  spiritual  personality.  Inasmuch  as 
personality  finds  its  manifestation  in  action ,  let  us  consider 
first  our  Lord’s  work  as  Mediator,  —  i.e.  His  priestly  and 
atoning  work.  This  is  especially  presented  in  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews. 

ii.  CHRIST  AS  OUR  HIGH-PRIEST 

Double  typology  of  Melchizedek  and  of  Aaron,  pointing 
to  our  Lord  as  (a)  the  Divine  Son,  and  (b)  as  the  human 
Jesus.  Our  Lord’s  priestly  work  as  accomplished  in  the 
earthly  and  also  in  the  heavenly  sphere;  He  is  Mediator 
both  as  Divine  ‘Son’  and  also  as  the  human  Jesus.  The 


172 


SUMMARY  OF  CONTENTS 


heavenly  priesthood  transcends  while  including  within 
itself  the  power  and  effect  of  the  earthly  priesthood.  The 
full  consummation  of  our  salvation  as  yet  in  the  future;  it 
is  apprehended  by  faith  and  hope.  Our  Lord’s  Divine- 
human  Person  perfected  by  His  atoning  death.  The 
Aaronic  and  Melchizedekian  priesthoods  contrasted. 
‘Heaven’  and  the  ‘heavenly  places’;  the  New  Jerusalem 
as  the  final  goal  of  Christian  hope. 

iii.  THE  PERSONALITY  OF  OUR  HIGH-PRIEST  AS  DIVINE 
AND  YET  AS  HUMAN 

Typology  of  the  Jewish  Tabernacle  as  pointing  to  this 
twofold  aspect  of  our  Lord’s  Person.  Unity  of  our  Lord’s 
concrete  Personality.  The  respective  view-points  of  the 
Nicene  and  of  the  Apostles’  Creed,  —  the  first  being  the 
creed  of  our  Lord’s  Divine  Sonship,  the  second  the  creed 
of  His  humanity.  In  what  sense  is  our  Lord’s  manhood 
‘impersonal’;  in  what  sense  ‘personal’?  The  Divine  Son 
one  and  the  same  Person  with  the  human  Mediator. 

Chapter  II. 

The  Theology  of  the  Holy  Spirit 

i.  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT  AS  A  PERSON 

Division  between  two  great  sections  of  the  Catholic 
Church  on  the  question  of  the  ‘procession’  of  the  Holy 
Ghost;  possibilities  for  a  better  understanding  in  the  deeper 
study  of  the  Person  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  New  Testa¬ 
ment  teaching  is  found  especially  in  the  Gospel  of  St.  John 
and  in  parts  of  St.  Paul’s  Epistles,  among  which  Romans  viii. 
is  of  primary  importance.  Our  Lord’s  promise  of  the 
“Comforter”  who  is  to  come  “in  His  (Christ’s)  Name”; 
this  phrase  “in  my  Name”  pointing  to  an  essential  oneness 
as  between  the  Holy  Spirit  and  Christ;  yet  together  with 
this  unity  of  nature  a  distinction  of  Persons  is  clearly 
indicated.  The  ‘glorification’  of  Jesus  as  the  pre-condition 
for  the  coming  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  In  what  did  our  Lord’s 


SUMMARY  OF  CONTENTS 


173 


glorification  consist?  First  of  all,  in  His  death  on  the  cross; 
then  in  His  Resurrection.  In  this  ‘glorification’  the  human 
spirit  of  Jesus,  perfected  by  suffering,  is  taken  up  into  per¬ 
sonal  union  with  the  Spirit  of  God. 

The  glorification  of  Christ  not  an  apotheosis;  His  uni¬ 
versal  gracious  presence  as  ‘quickening  Spirit’  is  not  to  be 
confused  with  the  Divine  omnipresence.  The  distinction 
between  the  Divine  and  human  natures  is  never  obliterated, 
any  more  than  is  the  distinction  between  the  Persons  of 
the  Risen  Christ  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  consequence 
of  our  Lord’s  ‘glorification’  the  Holy  Spirit  henceforward 
appears  as  the  (human)  ‘Spirit  of  Jesus’  no  less  than  as  the 
‘Spirit  of  God.’  Yet  the  Holy  Ghost  does  not,  properly 
speaking,  become  incarnate  either  in  the  Person  of  Christ 
or  in  the  Church. 

The  office  and  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost  as  “Paraclete” 
briefly  indicated.  He  is  the  ‘  Spirit  of  the  Truth,’  —  the 
Witness  to  Christ.  His  relation  to  the  Church  and  to  the 
Christian  individual. 

Conclusion:  —  A  ‘double  procession’  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
might  be  indicated  as  follows:  —  The  Spirit  ‘proceeds’ 
originally  and  eternally  from  the  Person  of  God  the  Father, 
and  (in  consequence  of  the  glorification  of  Jesus)  now  also 
from  the  Divine-human  Person  of  Jesus  Christ. 

ii.  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT  AS  THE  LIFE  OF  THE  RISEN  CHRIST 

The  Holy  Spirit  no  mere  influence.  The  name  “Para¬ 
clete”  can  be  understood  only  of  a  personal,  self-conscious 
Agent.  At  the  same  time,  the  term  ‘Holy  Spirit’  appears 
to  be  frequently  employed  in  the  New  Testament  in  the 
sense  of  a  “power”  or  essential  influence,  rather  than  of  an 
obviously  distinct  Personality.  The  ‘spirit’  of  Christ  as 
equivalent  to  the  ‘mind’  or  ‘life’  of  Christ. 

Is  what  is  known  as  the  ‘subliminal  self’  to  be  recognized 
as  a  sphere  of  the  Spirit’s  influence?  Phenomena  of  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  wherein  the  disciples  were  lifted  above  the 
level  of  ordinary  consciousness,  as  bearing  upon  this  ques¬ 
tion.  Inspiration ,  —  the  work  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  —  as 


174 


SUMMARY  OF  CONTENTS 


distinct  from  revelation,  —  the  work  of  the  Divine  Word 
or  Logos.  “  Sacramental  grace,”  like  the  phenomena  of 
prophetism  and  of  “charismatic  gifts”  in  the  Church,  ap¬ 
parently  witnesses  to  the  fact  that  spiritual  life  and  strength 
may  be  unconsciously  conveyed  to  the  soul  of  man.  The 
presence  of  the  Holy  Ghost  as  witnessed  to  indirectly,  or 
by  its  effects.  The  Spirit  at  Pentecost  was  manifested  in 
social  form,  —  the  form  of  fellowship,  —  by  the  Gift  of 
Tongues. 

Spiritual  life  is  ours  only  through  union  with  the  Risen 
Christ,  as  indicated  by  St.  Paul’s  phrase  (to  be)  “in  Christ.” 
Analogy  of  the  body;  Christ  as  the  Head,  Christians  as  the 
members;  —  all  sharing  in  a  common  life.  The  “self-efface¬ 
ment”  of  the  Holy  Spirit  an  act  of  Divine  condescension, 
analogous  to  the  Incarnation,  and  even  to  the  Death  on  the 
cross. 

The  Spirit  (Life)  of  the  Risen  Jesus  as  energizing  through 
us  upon  the  lives  of  others.  This  Life  marked  by  great 
freedom  of  self-expression;  it  operates  not  only  through 
the  ‘official’  channels  of  the  Word  and  Sacraments,  but  also 
through  individual  human  contacts,  —  the  vital  touch  of 
human  personality. 

iii.  st.  Paul’s  teaching  concerning  ‘the  spirit’ 

A  growing  tendency  at  the  present  time  is  to  identify  the 
Risen  and  glorified  Christ  with  ‘the  Spirit.’  This  opens  up 
the  question  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  New-Testament  term 
‘Spirit’  or  ‘the  Spirit,’  especially  in  the  writings  of  St.  Paul. 
Is  ‘the  Spirit’  in  Pauline  phraseology  an  exact  equivalent 
of  ‘the  Holy  Spirit’?  ‘Holy  Spirit’  (‘Holy  Ghost’)  as  a 
Divine  Name  is  exclusive ,  while  ‘Spirit’  (‘the  Spirit’)  is 
inclusive.  ‘Spirit’  as  used  by  St.  Paul  bears  a  threefold  sig¬ 
nificance;  —  (a)  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God;  (b)  the  Spirit  of, 
or  the  Spirit  which  is  the  Risen  and  glorified  Christ;  and 
(c)  the  spirits  of  those  who  are  ‘in  Christ.’  The  distinction 
between  the  Spirit  of  God  and  ‘the  Spirit’  as  the  Divine 
Christ  is  the  distinction  between  the  Persons  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  of  the  Incarnate  Word  or  Logos. 


SUMMARY  OF  CONTENTS 


175 


The  spiritual  realm  distinguished  from  the  realm  of  merely 
psychical  experience  in  I.  Cor.  ii.  9-16.  Ethical  character 
of  the  spiritual  life;  the  ‘spirit’  as  contrasted  (a)  with  the 
‘letter,’  and  (b)  with  the  ‘flesh.’  The  ‘freedom  of  the  spirit’ 
expresses  itself  in  loving  service. 

The  phrase  ‘in  the  Spirit’  compared  with  the  closely  con¬ 
nected  Pauline  phrases  ‘in  the  Lord,’  ‘in  Christ’  (‘in  Christ 
Jesus’). 

Chapter  III. 

The  Divine  Trinity  and  Personality 

(I)  Intellectual  challenge  presented  by  the  dogma  of  the 
Holy  Trinity;  it  seems  paradoxical;  does  it  involve  self-con¬ 
tradiction?  Let  us  reexamine  the  statements  of  the  his¬ 
toric  Creeds.  (II)  The  key  to  the  solution  of  the  Trini¬ 
tarian  problem  is  to  be  found  in  personality;  in  a  closer 
analysis  of  what  is  involved  in  consciousness. 

The  antithesis  between  ‘person’  and  ‘substance’  is  at  the 
basis  of  the  Church’s  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  This  antith¬ 
esis  to  be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  our  self-consciousness. 
The  distinction  between  the  ‘instrument’  of  consciousness 
and  its  ‘ground’  is  the  distinction  between  ‘person’  and 
‘substance’  in  the  Godhead.  (Ill)  The  ‘burning  bush’  as 
the  symbol  of  self-consciousness.  (Other  less  adequate  sym¬ 
bols  noted  in  passing.) 

But  this  does  not  bring  us  at  once  to  the  Church’s  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  Trinity.  (IV)  ‘Person’  in  the  Godhead  must 
be  posited  thrice  (must  be  multiplied  by  three).  This  means 
that  the  triune  consciousness  of  the  Godhead  transcends  all 
human  or  finite  experience;  the  Fact  of  the  Holy  Trinity  is 
unique. 

(V)  Illustrations  of  the  fact  of  plural  personality  in  the 
Godhead  have  been  sought  in  external  nature  (the  sun  and 
its  radiance;  the  fountain  and  the  stream  proceeding 
therefrom).  (VI)  Also  in  the  constitution  of  the  human 
spirit,  with  its  distinct  faculties,  such  as  “memory,  under¬ 
standing,  will.”  Again,  the  endeavor  has  been  made  to 
interpret  the  fact  of  the  Trinity  by  means  of  the  process  of 


176 


SUMMARY  OF  CONTENTS 


self-consciousness;  i.e.  by  identifying  the  factors  of  the 
self-conscious  process  directly  with  the  ‘Persons’  of  the 
Holy  Trinity.  These  attempts,  though  suggestive,  are  not 
altogether  convincing.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  at¬ 
tempt  to  interpret  the  Trinity  by  the  analysis  of  love  as  a 
psychical  or  spiritual  process.  ‘Faculties’  or  ‘processes’  in 
the  soul  are  not,  by  themselves,  distinct  persons.  (VII) 
How,  then,  shall  we  define  Triune  personality?  Aquinas’ 
endeavor  to  interpret  the  three  ‘Persons’  in  the  Godhead  as 
‘relations  of  origin’;  this  attempt  not  convincing.  ‘Person’ 
in  the  Holy  Trinity  cannot  be  defined  save  as  ‘instrument’ 
or  ‘means’  (5P  ov)  of  consciousness.  (VIII)  This  con¬ 
ception  of  ‘personality’  is  implicitly  contained  in  the 
statements  of  the  ‘Athanasian’  Creed,  though  it  was  not 
clearly  present  to  the  minds  of  those  who  framed  that 
Symbol.  This  may  be  termed  the  distinctively  Western  or 
Augustinian  interpretation  of  Triune  personality  in  the 
Godhead.  (IX)  In  distinction  from  the  above,  the  ‘Ni- 
cene’  interpretation  of  the  Trinity  is  that  of  three  concrete 
personal  Beings  or  ‘Hypostases,’  of  whom  One  is  original 
and  the  other  Two  derivative.  The  two  interpretations 
taken  together  are  necessary  to  form  the  complete  concep¬ 
tion  of  the  Holy  Trinity.  This  doctrine  in  its  final  form 
an  illustration  of  “development”  or  evolutionary  process. 
Intellectual  apprehension  finds  its  goal  and  end  in  the 
worship  of  the  Triune  God. 

Note:  —  On  the  so-called  ‘damnatory  clauses’  of  the 
‘Athanasian’  Creed. 


Chapter  IV. 

The  Incarnation  and  Personality 

To  the  reader  of  the  New-Testament  record  Jesus  Christ 
must  appear  as  a  personality  at  once  human  and  more  than 
human.  Testimonies  adduced  from  the  Gospel  history. 
Christian  thought  must  seek  to  express  by  some  intellectual 
formula  this  union  of  Divinity  and  humanity  in  the  Person 
of  Christ. 


SUMMARY  OF  CONTENTS 


177 


The  Christology  of  the  Church  as  set  forth  in  the  historic 
formula  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  which  recognizes  two 
‘natures,’  —  the  Divine  and  the  human,  —  as  subsisting  in 
the  one  ‘Person’  of  Christ.  As  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  so  also  in  Christology  two  distinct  (not  contra¬ 
dictory)  conceptions  may  be  noted,  depending  upon  the 
relative  difference  in  meaning  between  the  Greek  ‘hypos¬ 
tasis’  and  the  Latin  ‘persona.’  In  the  Greek  “orthodox” 
conception  Christ  is  a  Divine  Being  manifesting  Himself  in 
the  guise  of  a  man;  Latin  and  Western  thought,  on  the 
other  hand,  by  balancing  the  conceptions  of  Divinity 
and  humanity,  seeks  to  do  fuller  justice  to  our  Lord’s  Man¬ 
hood.  Is  the  Manhood  of  Christ  to  be  regarded  as  ‘imper¬ 
sonal’  or  as  ‘personal’?  The  personal  ‘ego’  of  Jesus  Christ 
is  identical  with  the  ‘person’  of  the  eternal  Son  of  God. 
Dante’s  illustration  of  the  Incarnation;  another  illustration 
offered  to  express  the  union  of  Divinity  and  humanity  in 
the  one  Person  of  Christ.  The  ‘personality’  of  our  Lord  — 
His  inmost  avros  —  is  Divine  and  uncreated;  yet  by  virtue 
of  its  union  with  the  Manhood  our  Lord  may  be  said  to  be 
relatively  a  human  person. 

Sis  our  Lord  as  Man  to  be  worshipped?  The  answer  to 
this  question  depends  upon  whether,  even  as  Man,  Christ 
was  mere  man.  We  worship  Christ  in  His  Humanity;  yet 
this  worship  is  relatively  distinct,  though  inseparable,  from 
the  worship  of  Almighty  God. 

Chapter  V. 

Human  Personality  and  Justification  by  Faith 

Importance  of  the  consideration  of  the  Scriptural  doctrine 
of  Justification  in  our  study  of  personality,  inasmuch  as 
“justification”  means  nothing  less  than  the  Divine  recogni¬ 
tion  of  human  character  from  the  moral  and  spiritual  view¬ 
point.  Is  this  “justification”  by  faith  only,  or  by  faith  and 
works?  Apparent  discrepancy  between  the  teaching  of  St. 
Paul  and  that  of  St.  James  on  this  matter.  Importance,  in 
St.  Paul’s  teaching,  of  the  idea  of  justification  as  ‘pardon’ 


178 


SUMMARY  OF  CONTENTS 


or  ‘forgiveness’;  a  thought  which  is  not  emphasized  in  the 
Epistle  of  St.  James.  Human  “righteousness”  and  (by 
consequence)  “justification”  considered  as  ‘negative’  and  as 
‘positive.’  St.  Paul  affirms  that  man  is  not  justified  by 
‘works  of  law.’ 

The  relation  of  human  righteousness  (and  justification)  to 
faith  is  twofold;  righteousness  as  ‘out  of’  faith  and  as 
‘through’  faith.  Faith  as  (1)  the  instrument  and  as  (2)  the 
subjective  ground  of  man’s  justification.  The  ultimate 
ground  of  human  justification  is  the  sole  merits  of  Jesus 
Christ. 

Justification  as  exemplified  in  the  case  of  Abraham  and 
of  Rahab.  The  ‘works’  here  in  question  were  wrought  in 
faith  and  in  the  power  of  the  Spirit.  Justification  is  not 
“by  works”  in  the  sense  that  “works”  are  its  instrumental 
cause.  On  this  point  there  is  no  divergence  between  the 
teaching  of  St.  Paul  and  that  of  St.  James. 

Is  righteousness  realized  ‘in  the  flesh’  or  ‘in  the  spirit’? 
This  leads  on  to  the  final  question  as  to  whether  our  Lord, 
as  Man,  was  justified  ‘by  works  of  law.’  Although  Christ 
as  Man  kept  the  Law  perfectly  throughout  His  earthly  life, 
it  was  primarily  by  ‘faith’  rather  than  by  ‘works  of  law’ 
that  He  was  ‘justified’  in  His  final  act  of  self-surrender 
upon  the  Cross.  This  was  preeminently  that  act  of  (human) 
righteousness  (Si/ccuco/xa)  on  the  ground  of  which  our  Lord 
as  Man  was  justified;  and  whereby  He  also  won  justi¬ 
fication  for  all  who  by  faith  are  vitally  one  with  Him. 
Accordingly,  it  is  only  ‘in  the  Spirit’  that  we,  like  our  Lord 
Himself,  are  ‘justified.’ 


Appended  Note  —  Aspects  of  Our  Lord’s  Obedience. 


INDEX 


I.  SUBJECTS  AND  AUTHORS 

Aaron,  type  of  our  Lord  as  human  High-priest,  io  f. 

Abraham,  cited  by  St.  Paul  and  St.  James  as  an  example  of 
‘justification,’  139,  140,  152-155. 

Adam,  Christ  as  the  second,  45,  55. 

Anselm  (St.),  on  the  atonement  of  Christ,  143  (footnote). 

Apostles’  Creed,  the  creed  of  our  Lord’s  humanity,  22,  26. 

Aquinas,  his  definition  of  ‘person’  in  the  Trinity  criticised, 
100-102. 

Aristotle,  his  definition  of  unity,  109,  no  (footnote). 

Ascension  of  Christ,  a  stage  in  His  glorification,  4-6. 

‘Athanasian’  Creed,  the  most  comprehensive  statement  of 
Trinitarian  doctrine,  106;  its  statement  of  the  Incarna¬ 
tion,  21,  132;  the  ‘damnatory’  clauses  in  the  Athanasian 
Creed. 

Athanasius  (St.),  his  teaching  upon  the  Son  of  God  as  eternal 
Word  and  Wisdom  of  the  Father,  92,  93;  on  the  meaning 
of  ‘hypostasis,’  103. 

Atonement,  ritual  of  the  Day  of,  15-17. 

Augustine  (St.),  his  theology  of  the  Trinity,  94  f . ;  interprets 
the  Trinity  by  psychological  analogies,  95;  confesses  his 
inability  to  define  ‘persona,’  103. 

Baptism  of  Jesus,  31,  32. 

Basil  (St.),  defines  ‘homoousios,’  109  (footnote). 

Brass,  of  the  Tabernacle,  a  type  of  our  Lord’s  human  nature, 
20,  21. 

Bull,  Bp.,  quoted,  153. 

Bush,  the  ‘burning  bush’  a  symbol  of  consciousness,  82,  83. 

179 


i8o 


INDEX 


Calvin,  quoted,  164. 

Chalcedon,  Council  of,  its  definition  of  the  two  ‘natures’  in 
the  ‘one  Person’  of  Christ,  119,  122. 

‘Charismatic  gifts,’  analogous  to  the  phenomena  of  religious 
revivals,  50. 

Christ,  as  Son  of  God,  10-12  (see  Resurrection  and  Glorifica¬ 
tion  of  Christ).  He  was  “justified  in  the  spirit,”  161; 
but  not  as  it  were  “by  works  of  law,”  163  f.;  His  sinless¬ 
ness,  164,  165. 

Christology,  the  doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ;  as  interpreted 
by  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  119  f. 

Church,  the  Body  of  Christ,  38,  58;  only  metaphorically  a 
‘person,’  38;  the  Church’s  personal  centre  or  ‘ego’  is  in 
Christ,  52,  53. 

Clement  (St.),  of  Rome,  affirms  justification  as  ‘by  faith  only,’ 
154. 

Consciousness,  its  constitutive  elements,  79  f.;  union  of  ‘per¬ 
son’  and  ‘substance’  in  consciousness,  ibid.;  illustrated 
by  the  figure  of  the  Burning  Bush,  82  f. 

Creed;  see  “Apostles,”  “Nicene,”  “Athanasian”  Creed. 

Cyril  (St.),  as  spokesman  of  the  Greek  Christology,  123,  124. 

Dante,  his  interpretation  of  the  Trinity,  85,  86;  of  the  Incar¬ 
nation,  130,  13 1. 

Deissmann,  A.,  59;  quoted,  71  (footnote);  147. 

‘Dia’  (‘through’),  force  of  the  Greek  preposition  in  the  phrase 
‘dia  pisteos,’  ‘through  faith,’  145-147,  154. 

St’  ov,  indicates  the  ‘instrumental  cause’  of  consciousness 
(the  ‘person’)  80-82. 

Divine  nature  of  Christ,  distinct  from  His  human  nature,  19  f., 
63,  64. 

‘Essence’  (ova- ta)  as  distinguished  from  ‘hypostasis,’  109. 

Euthymius  Zigabenus,  on  the  ‘personality’  of  Christ,  130  (foot¬ 
note). 


INDEX 


181 


Eutychianism,  a  modern  form  of,  65. 

‘Ex’  (‘out  of’),  force  of  the  Greek  preposition  in  the  phrase 
‘ek  pisteos,’  —  ‘out  of’  faith,  145-147. 
ov,  indicates  the  ‘ground’  of  consciousness  (the  ‘sub¬ 
stance’),  80-82. 

Faith,  at  once  the  ‘ground’  and  the  ‘instrument’  of  justifica¬ 
tion,  146  f. 

‘Filioque’  clause  in  the  Western  form  of  the  Nicene  Creed,  27, 

28,  39,  40. 

Fire,  the  symbol  of  Spirit,  48,  49;  also  of  personality,  82,  83, 
131- 

Forgiveness,  Divine  forgiveness  as  the  ‘negative’  aspect  of 
justification,  142,  143. 

Girton  Conference  of  Modern  Churchmen  (1921),  59  (footnote). 

Glorification,  the,  of  Christ,  3  f.;  its  successive  stages,  33-35. 

Gold,  of  the  Tabernacle,  a  type  of  our  Lord’s  Divine  nature,  21. 

Greek  type  of  Trinitarianism,  its  characteristic  features,  108- 
in. 

Gregory  Nazianzen  (St.),  on  the  relation  of  the  Son  of  God  to 
the  Father,  no. 

Hall,  Dr.  F.  J.,  quoted,  149. 

‘Heaven,’  ‘heavenly  places,’  17-19. 

High-priest,  Christ  as  our,  9  f . ;  characteristic  acts  or  attitudes 
of  the  high-priest,  14-17. 

Holiness,  involves  the  idea  of  ‘separation,’  60,  61. 

“Holy  of  holies”  typifies  our  Lord’s  Divine  nature,  20. 

Holy  Spirit  (Holy  Ghost),  a  Person  distinct  from,  yet  indenti- 
fied  with  Christ,  7-9;  29-30,  37;  the  ‘procession’  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  27,  28,  39,  40;  the  Holy  Spirit  as  ‘Paraclete,’ 

29,  3°>  37)  42>  431  teaching  office  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  37, 
38;  His  characteristic  function,  inspiration,  47-49;  His 
personality  distinct  from  our  own,  39,  71,  72;  His  self- 


182 


INDEX 


effacement,  53,  54;  He  is  the  animating  principle  of  the 
Church  as  “the  Body  of  Christ,”  44  f.,  52-54;  He  ap¬ 
peared  at  Pentecost  in  ‘social’  form,  52;  the  “fruits  of 
the  Spirit,”  69,  70. 

‘Homoousios,’  meaning  of,  109-m. 

Hooker,  Richard,  his  statement  as  to  the  Divine-human  per¬ 
sonality  of  Christ,  24,  134  (footnote);  affirms  that  justi¬ 
fication  is  ‘  by  faith  only,’  148. 

Humanity  of  Christ,  as  distinct  from  His  Divine  nature,  20, 
21;  in  what  sense  impersonal;  in  what  sense  personal,  21, 
128-130;  an  illustration  offered,  13 1,  132. 

‘Hypostasis,’  meaning  of  in  Greek  Trinitarianism,  91-94,  103, 
109;  distinguished  from  ‘ousia,’  109;  ‘hypostasis’  in 
Greek  Christology,  119-121. 

Incarnation,  doctrine  of  the,  as  defined  at  Chalcedon,  119  f. 

‘In  Christ,’  ‘in  the  Lord,’  ‘in  the  Spirit,’  71,  72. 

Inspiration,  the  characteristic  activity  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
47-49- 

Jackson,  George,  D.D.,  59  (footnote). 

James  (St.),  affirms  that  justification  is  “by  works,”  139,  143, 
144;  limitations  of  his  teaching  as  compared  with  that  of 
St.  Paul,  140-144;  the  teaching  of  the  two  apostles  con¬ 
trasted,  1 52-1 59. 

Jehovah,  this  Name  indicates  God  as  a  self-conscious  Being,  82, 

83. 

Jerome  (St.),  his  rendering  of  the  Greek  prepositions  ‘dia’  and 
‘ek,’  147. 

Jesus,  the  Name  indicates  our  Lord  as  Man,  9,  10. 

Jesus  Christ,  in  His  Manhood  the  Object  of  worship,  134-136. 

John  Damascene  (St.),  his  Christological  teaching,  122,  124. 

John  (St.),  Gospel  of;  its  teaching  concerning  the  Person  and 
work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  28  f. 

Justification,  in  what  sense  ‘by  faith  only’;  in  what  sense  ‘by 


INDEX 


1 83 


works,’  1 54-1 57;  negative  and  positive  aspects  of,  42; 
‘justification  of  life,’  143;  justification  as,  ‘in  the  spirit,’ 
159-161. 

Keyser,  Prof.  C.  J.,  88. 

Lambeth  Conference  Report  on  The  Separated  Churches  of  the 
East,  quoted,  124,  125. 

Leo  (St.),  Bishop  of  Rome,  his  contribution  to  the  theology  of 
our  Lord’s  Person,  121,  126. 

Life  of  the  Risen  Christ,  the  Holy  Spirit  as,  41  f. 

Logic,  its  categories  inadequate  for  the  interpretation  of  per¬ 
sonality,  98-103. 

Logos,  the  Divine  ‘Word’  or  Son;  His  function,  revelation, 
47-49;  the  Logos  distinct  from  ‘the  Spirit,’  65. 

‘Lord’  (6  Kvpios),  the  Divine  Name  of  Christ,  4,  5;  St.  Paul’s 
phrase  ‘in  the  Lord,’  71,  72. 

Love  as  an  illustration  of  the  Triune  consciousness  of  God,  96, 
97- 

Luther,  his  teaching  that  justification  is  ‘by  faith  only,’  138; 
interprets  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  73. 

Mason,  A.  J.,  quoted,  156  (footnote). 

Melchizedek,  type  of  our  Lord  as  Divine  high-priest,  9,  10,  12. 

Multiplicity,  the  characteristic  of  the  Spirit  as  Divine  Gift,  51, 

53- 

Mysticism,  the,  of  St.  Paul,  71. 

‘Nature’  (natura,  <£v<ris),  as  distinct  from  ‘person,’  120;  the 
Divine  and  human  natures  in  Christ  are  distinct  from 
each  other,  20-21;  these  two  ‘natures’  are  united  in  the 
one  ‘Person’  of  Christ,  119  f.,  132. 

Nestorianism,  an  erroneous  interpretation  of  the  Incarnation, 
24,  128. 

Nicene  Creed,  the  creed  of  our  Lord’s  Divinity,  22,  23. 

‘Nicene’  interpretation  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  91-94- 


184 


INDEX 


Ottley,  R.  L.,  quoted,  124. 

‘P,1’  ‘p,2’  as  symbols  for  different  meanings  of  ‘person,’  120, 
126. 

‘Paraclete,’  the  Holy  Spirit  as,  29,  30,  37,  42,  43. 

‘Parsopa,’  the  equivalent  of  ‘person’  (7rpdcrw7rov)  in  the  East 
Syrian  liturgical  books,  125  (footnote). 

Paul,  (St.),  his  teaching  concerning  ‘the  Spirit,’  58  f . ;  his 
‘mysticism,’  71;  his  doctrine  of  ‘justification  by  faith,’ 
138  f.;  his  interpretation  of  justification  as  the  ‘pardon’  or 
‘forgiveness’  of  sins,  140-142;  teaches  that  faith  is 
‘reckoned’  for  righteousness,  153,  155;  that  righteousness 
is  realized  ‘in  the  Spirit,’  not  ‘in  the  flesh,’  159-161. 

Pentecost,  the  birthday  of  the  Church,  46. 

‘Person,’  different  connotations  of  the  word,  120;  distinguished 
from  ‘substance,’  79  f . ;  ‘person’  as  the  ‘instrument’  of 
consciousness,  80,  82;  defined  by  Aquinas  as  ‘relation  of 
origin’  in  the  Godhead,  100-102;  interpreted  by  St. 
Augustine  and  many  Schoolmen  as  psychological  function, 
95;  concrete  meaning  of  ‘person,’  91,  120. 

Personality,  the  highest  category  of  theological  science,  (Pref¬ 
ace)  ;  the  personality  of  Christ  as  Divine  and  as  human, 
19  f.,  134. 

‘Procession’  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  differently  interpreted  by  the 
Greek  and  Latin  Churches,  27,  28. 

Prophetism,  the  phenomena  of,  testify  to  the  presence  of  the 
Spirit,  46,  47. 

‘Prosopon,’  the  Greek  equivalent  to  the  Latin  ‘persona,’  120, 
121. 

Pusey,  Dr.  E.  B.,  49. 

‘Qnoma,’  the  equivalent  of  ‘hypostasis’  in  the  East  Syrian 
liturgical  books,  125  (footnote). 

‘Quicunque  Vult;’  see  ‘Athanasian’  Creed. 


INDEX 


185 


Resurrection,  the,  of  Christ,  the  first  stage  in  His  exaltation  or 
glorification,  4-6;  the  source  of  our  new  life,  44,  45. 

‘  Revelation/  the  characteristic  activity  of  the  Word  or  Son  of 
God,  47-49. 

Righteousness,  St.  Paul  teaches  that  faith  is  ‘reckoned’  for, 
153,  I55l  righteousness  as  realized  ‘in  the  Spirit,’  not  ‘in 
the  flesh,’  159-161;  the  righteousness  of  Christ  as  our 
Head,  143,  151. 

Sacraments,  as  witnessing  to  a  ‘  theology  of  the  unconscious,’  49. 

Sacrifice,  the,  of  Christ,  149  f. 

Sanctuary,  the  cosmic  or  universal,  13. 

Scholastic  theology;  its  interpretation  of  ‘personality’  inade¬ 
quate,  126,  127. 

Scott,  Anderson,  quoted,  72. 

Seeberg,  R.,  identifies  ‘the  Spirit’  with  the  Divine  Christ,  59, 
63,  65. 

‘Self’  or  ‘ego,’  the  ‘instrument’  ( 81 ’  ov)  of  consciousness,  80- 
82;  it  is  indefinable  in  terms  of  ‘substance,’  ‘attribute’  or 
‘relation,’  98-103. 

Sinlessness  of  Christ,  the,  164-167. 

Sin-offering,  ritual  of  the,  in  Leviticus  xvi.,  15,  16. 

Son  of  God,  Christ  as,  9-12. 

‘Sovereign’  Spirit  (to  Kvpiov),  the  Holy  Ghost  as,  37,  40. 

‘Spirit,’  the;  inclusive  meaning  of  the  term,  61,  62;  impersonal 
aspect  of  ‘Spirit,’  43  f . ;  ‘spirit’  contrasted  by  St.  Paul 
with  ‘the  flesh’  68  f.,  144,  159-161. 

Spirit,  the  human  spirit  of  the  Risen  Christ,  distinguished  from 
the  Spirit  of  God,  32-34,  63-65. 

‘Subliminal  self,’  the,  45  f. 

‘Substance’  (Latin  ‘substantia’),  as  distinct  from  ‘person/  44, 
79  f.,  120,  121;  ‘substance’  as  ‘ground’  («£  ov)  of  con¬ 
sciousness,  80-82. 

Tabernacle,  the  Jewish,  a  type  of  Christ,  20,  21. 


INDEX 


1 86 


Tertullian,  distinguishes  between  ‘person’  and  1  substance’  in 
the  Godhead,  79. 

Theology,  its  sources,  (Preface). 

Thirty-nine  Articles,  quoted,  on  Justification,  138,  148,  151. 

Tongues,  gift  of,  as  the  manifestation  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
46,  47. 

Trent,  Council  of,  affirms  that  Christ  is  the  sole  ‘meritorious 
cause’  of  our  justification,  149. 

Trinitarianism,  Greek  and  Latin  types  of,  distinguished,  91, 
104-108. 

£ 

Unconscious  influence,  an  effect  of  the  Spirit,  56,  57. 

Union  of  the  Divine  and  human  ‘natures’  in  the  one  ‘Person’ 
of  Christ  illustrated,  13 1,  132;  union  of  the  (human) 
spirit  of  Jesus  with  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God  a  personal 
rather  than  an  essential  union,  63-65;  our  mystical  union 
with  Christ,  71,  72. 

Western  (Latin)  type  of  Trinitarianism,  104-108. 

Westminister  Shorter  Catechism,  teaches  that  justification  is 
‘by  faith  only,’  on  the  ground  of  the  (imputed)  righteous¬ 
ness  of  Christ,  148,  149. 

‘Word’  or  Logos,  the  Divine;  His  function,  revelation,  47-49; 
the  Logos  distinct  from  ‘the  Spirit,’  ibid.;  the  Eternal  Word 
is  ‘of  one  substance  with’  the  Father,  92,  93. 

Works,  in  what  sense  justification  is  ‘by  works,’  156,  157; 
‘works  of  law’  inadequate  for  man’s  justification,  144,  150, 
163  f. 


INDEX 


187 


PAGE 

Gen.  iv.  25 . . . .  101 
Exod.  iii,  2. . . .  83 


iii.  14 .  83 

xxix.  37 .  14 


Lev.  xvi.  33 _  9 

Job  xxxii.  2. . . .  166 
Ps.  li.  12 .  70 

Isa.  xli.  8,  9 _  168 


xlii.  1 .  168 

xliii.  10 .  168 

Iii.  13 .  168 


Jer.  xxiii.  6.  .  . .  151 
Ezek.  i.  20,  21..  18 

Wisdom  vii.  22- 


27 .  4i 

Ecclus.  1.  5-1 1, 

20 .  16 

Matt.  i.  1 .  24 

i.  18 .  24 

xiii.  55,  56. . .  117 
xix.  17. .  .116,  164 

Mk.  x.  18 . 116 

Lu.  v.  8,  9 .  1 17 

xviii.  19 .  1 16 


II.  TEXTS 


PAGE 

Jno.  i.  14 .  132 

iii.  8 .  50 

iv.  2 .  32 

v.  19,  30 -  38 

v.  30 .  164 

v.  43 .  29 

vii.  38,  39-  •  •  56 

vii.  39 . 7,  31 

viii.  40 .  1 16 

viii.  57,  59. . .  1 18 

x.  18 .  162 

xii.  23,  24 -  33 

xii.  24 .  53 

xii.  25 .  165 

xiii.  10 .  no 

xiii.  31 . 33 

xiii.  32 .  33 

xiv.  10 .  164 

xiv.  17 . 43,  50 

xiv.  18 .  30 

xiv.  19 .  29 

xv.  26 . 31,  43 

xvi.  7,  8,  13, 

14 .  43 

xvi.  13 .  38 

xx.  22 .  32 

Acts  ii.  22 .  1 16 

iii.  13,  26. . . .  168 

iv.  27,  30. . . .  168 

vii.  56 .  1 16 

x.  38 .  32 

xiii.  2 .  51 

xvi.  7 .  35 

xix.  2 .  7 


PAGE 


Rom.  i.  1-4 _  159 


i- 3,  4 .  3 

i.  4 .  6 

i.  5 .  142 

ii.  13 .  156 

iii.  20 .  163 

iii.  28 .  138 

iii.  30 .  145 

iii.  31 .  15b 

iv.  1,  2 .  160 

iv.  2 .  150 


iv.  5 .  144 

iv.  25 .  143 

v.  6-10 .  168 

v.  10 .  45 

v.  16 .  165 

v.  18 .  143 

v.  19 .  151 

vii.  6,  11.  .69,  168 

viii.  1-27. .  .66,  68 

viii.  3 - 161,  163 

viii.  4 _ 158,  161 

viii.  9 .  35 

viii.  10 .  45 

viii.  16 .  39 

viii.  26,  27. . .  39 


xii.  4,  5 .  38 

xii.  25 .  iii 

xv.  18 .  142 

xvi.  26 .  142 


I.  Cor.  i.  30,  31.  151 


ii.  6-1 1 .  89 

ii.  9-16 .  66 

ii.  12 .  61 


INDEX 


1 88 


PAGE 

I.  Cor.  —  continued 


ii.  13- 

66 

ii.  14, 

i5- 

•  •  • 

67 

ii.  16. 

45 

iii.  21- 

-23. 

•  .51, 

68 

v.  12, 

I3* 

•  •  • 

61 

vi.  17. 

45 

viii.  6. 

...  145 

xii.  4- 

13- ■ 

39 

xii.  13 

..38, 

45 

xv.  45 

•  -36, 

55 

.  Cor. 

•  •  • 

111. 

17 

5,  9> 

64 

v.  1,  2 

19 

v.  16, 

i7- 

•  •  • 

6 

v.  21. 

16 

PAGE 


Eph.  i.  13 .  37 

iii.  15 .  92 

iv.  4 .  38 

iv.  4-6 .  72 

iv.  10 .  36 

iv.  16 .  58 

iv.  30 .  37 

Phil.  ii.  7 .  168 

iii.  15 .  114 

iii.  16 .  1 14 

iii.  20 .  19 

iv.  3 .  153 

I.  Tim.  iii.  16.  .  160 

II.  Tim.  ii.  13 . .  139 

iv.  22 .  62 


PAGE 

Heb.  —  continued 


ix.  24 .  14 

ix.  28 .  15 

x.  11,  12 .  13 

x.  19 .  13 

xi.  10,  13-16.  11 

xi.  19 .  152 

xii.  2 .  168 

xii.  14,  28,  29  18 

xii.  22 .  18 

xii.  26-28 _  19 

xiii.  8 .  21 

Jas.  ii.  22,  23...  155 

ii-  24 .  139 

ii.  26 .  159 

iv.  5 .  159 

v.  14-16 _  140 


Gal.  ii.  16.  .  146,  166 


ii.  17 .  166 

ii.  20 .  71 

ii.  21 .  167 

iii.  2-5 .  39 

iii.  7 .  168 

iii.  11 . 163 

iii.  16-19.  •  •  •  *68 

iii.  21 .  70 

iii.  28 .  53 

iii.  29 .  168 

iv.  4 .  168 

v.  5,  16,  25..  39 

v.  13 .  73 

v.  16,  18. ...  68 

v.  19-21 .  70 

vi.  18 .  62 


Philem.  25 .  62 


Heb.  i.  3 .  . . 

.  .11, 

92 

ii.  7-9 - 

26 

iv.  14. . .  . 

.  .14, 

23 

v.  1-3 - 

11 

v.  1-6. . .  . 

12 

v.  6 . 

23 

v.  8,  9. . . 

vi.  20.  . .  . 

23 

vii.  3 . 

22 

vii.  16 _ 

11 

vii.  20-22. 

•  •  •  • 

23 

vii.  26,  27 

•  •  • 

11 

vii.  28.  .  . 

.  .12, 

24 

ix.  1 . 

13 

ix.  14.  .  . . 

11 

I  Pet.  iii.  18. . .  6 

II  Pet.  i.  13,  14  22 

I  Jno.  i.  2 .  35 

iii-  7 .  157 

iii.  16 .  168 

iv.  2,  3 .  26 

v.  6 .  20 

Rev.  iii.  12 

(cp.  xxi.  10)  18 

iv.  5 .  52 

v.  6 .  52 

vii.  10 .  136 

xxi.  10 

(cp.  iii.  12)  18 

xxi.  22 .  17 


’ '"“to11  Theologies  Semmary-Speer  Library 


1  1012  01129  8033 


DATE  DUE 

rxB  "  ~ 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  U.S.  A. 

